The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade on May 11 sustained on the second remand the Commerce Department’s 2016-17 antidumping duty administrative review on activated carbon from China. The trade court had twice ordered Commerce to reconsider its inclusion of certain data on Thai carbonized material imports from France to value Chinese inputs, noting that Commerce had rejected the data in previous reviews because they were small quantities of wood-based charcoal and had an average unit value much higher than the rest of the Thai data. While Commerce had stood its ground after the first remand, the agency reversed course under protest in its second remand redetermination and excluded the French data.

Flooring importer FD Sales Company, LLC launched a challenge in the Court of International Trade claiming that CBP improperly denied some of its imports exclusions from Section 301 tariffs (FD Sales Company v. U.S., CIT # 21-00244). In a May 7 complaint, FD Sales said it brought in 49 entries of vinyl flooring, engineered wood flooring, “Aquaguard” wood flooring, tile saws and tile nippers on which it was granted exclusions from the Section 301 tariffs. The importer sought a refund of $671,442.81 in duties paid on the goods, of which $238,025.44 was granted by CBP. FD Sales claims that its imports were properly excluded from the additional duties “pursuant to exclusions to Section 301 granted by the Office of the United States Trade Representative.”

Mexican steel exporter Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. says that since Section 232 tariffs on Mexican steel and aluminum were made in violation of certain procedural requirements, they should not be deducted from the exporter's U.S. price when determining its antidumping margin. In a May 10 motion for summary judgment in a case at the Court of International Trade, Deacero also argued that since the tariffs are remedial and temporary, they are not ordinary customs duties and are thus excluded from antidumping duty calculations (Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. v. U.S., CIT # 20-03924).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Following a second remand order from the Court of International Trade, the Commerce Department dropped a downward adjustment for irrecoverable value-added tax from Chinese tire exporter Qingdao Sentury Co.'s export price in an antidumping case in its second remand determination. Sentury's antidumping rate dropped from 4.42% to 2.26%, leaving both Sentury and the government defense to sign off on Commerce's remand in May 7 filings from the exporter and DOJ, setting up a final decision from Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves. Reversing itself under respectful protest, Commerce only dropped the VAT from the export price after Choe-Groves found that the VAT is not an export tax but rather a domestic tax presumed to be included in the price of the subject good.

The Court of International Trade will allow a customs broker test-taker to proceed with a challenge to his failing grade, denying a motion to dismiss from the government that argued his case didn’t meet procedural requirements. Byungmin Chae’s delay in appealing to the trade court was caused in part by CBP’s own misleading statements, and his early missteps in the case before hiring a lawyer should not bar him from a hearing in court, CIT said in a decision May 7.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results that scrapped the adverse facts available rate in a countervailing duty case, in a May 6 opinion. Judge Richard Eaton found that Commerce's eventual decision to ditch the AFA subsidy rate relating to alleged benefits that exporter Heze Huayi Chemical Co. received from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program was consistent with prior remand instructions. Plaintiffs Clearon and Occidental Chemical initially filed the challenge, claiming that the AFA rate for Heze relating to the EBCP was too low and inconsistent with prior Commerce practice.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction for Chinese big data processing technology company Luokung Technology Corp., temporarily blocking the company's designation as a Chinese military company. Judge Rudolph Contreras issued the injunction in a May 5 ruling, finding it likely Luokung would prevail in its case against the designation. The publicly traded Chinese tech giant claims that the Communist Chinese Military Company (CCMC) designation issued by the Department of Defense was made in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, was arbitrary and capricious, and that the evidence in hand was not substantial enough to support a finding of state control over the company.