The Court of International Trade should throw out Wheatland Tube's case intended to compel CBP to respond to the company's requests for information and a tariff classification ruling because Wheatland has received all the relief to which it is legally entitled, the Department of Justice said in a Feb. 2 motion to dismiss the case. CBP has already responded to this RFI and the petition for a tariff classification ruling over the company's electrical conduits from Mexico, DOJ said. CBP also told Wheatland it agrees with the company's stance on the correct classification of its steel conduit pipe and was defending this position in separate litigation (Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00004).

The Court of International Trade properly found that there was no statutory basis for conducting expedited countervailing duty reviews, plaintiff-appellee Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 31 reply brief. The language in certain sections of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act doesn't establish that Congress "clearly and unambiguously" meant for Commerce to set up CVD expedited review procedures, the committee said (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1021).

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

Defendant-appellants in a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test said that the issue had already been decided by the Federal Circuit in a recent decision. In a letter to the appellate court, the defendant-appellants, Nucor Tubular Products, Atlas Tube and Searing Industries, said that they intend to seek initial en banc reconsideration in light of this opinion or a stay of further proceedings pending full resolution of this separate case (Dong-A Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2153).

A lawsuit by Home Depot USA over the president's authority to expand Section 232 national security tariffs beyond procedural deadlines filed at the Court of International Trade was assigned to a three-judge panel, in a Feb. 2 order. The judges -- Timothy Stanceu, Jennifer Choe-Groves and M. Miller Baker -- ruled on the original April 2021 decision to strike down the expansion of the Section 232 tariffs onto steel and aluminum "derivatives" (see 2104050049). (Home Depot USA v. United States, CIT #22-00014).

Thirteen U.S. states, along with Washington, D.C., two Latin American and Caribbean nations and a host of gun violence prevention organizations moved to appear as amici curiae to support the Mexican government's lawsuit against gun manufacturers, which alleges that they fueled violence in Mexico through illegal firearms sales practices (Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., D.C. Mass. #21-11269).

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

Proposed defendant-intervenor U.S. Steel Corporation will appeal a December 2021 Court of International Trade decision that denied the company the right to intervene in a Section 232 exclusion denial challenge. U.S. Steel will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to the Feb. 1 notice of appeal. In the decision, the trade court said that U.S. Steel cannot intervene since it won't be directly affected by the case's outcome and that any harm the company would experience as a result of a Section 232 exclusion being granted would be indirect since the company has no right to the sale of the covered products (see 2112060021) (NLMK Pennsylvania LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00507).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit allowed the American Steel Nail Coalition to appear as amicus curiae in a dispute over whether the president properly expanded the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs onto "derivative" products made beyond procedural deadlines. In the brief, the coalition urged the Federal Circuit to uphold this extension since it had a positive impact on the U.S. industry and the issue was already decided in the key case Transpacific Steel v. U.S. (see 2201100059). In Transpacific, the Federal Circuit greenlighted presidential action taken beyond procedural time limits so long as it is part of the original plan of action laid out in the Commerce Secretary's report preceding the Section 232 tariffs (see 2107130059) (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2066).

An auto parts importer said the Department of Justice is overcomplicating and misstating the use of its diesel engine nitrogen oxide (NOx) sensors in defense of CBP's classification of the sensors as instruments for chemical analysis under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9027. In a brief filed Jan. 31, Continental Automotive Systems says the NOx sensors, used to measure the amount of nitrogen oxide for emissions purposes, are instead provided for in heading 9026 as measurement devices (Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #18-00026).