Section 232 national security tariffs are not remedial and are in fact ordinary customs duties, meaning they should be deducted from an antidumping duty respondent's U.S. price, the U.S. argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to exporter Nippon Steel Corporation's arguments attempting to overturn the trade court's prior ruling on the issue in three other cases, DOJ argued that Section 232 duties are imposed to address imports that threaten national security and not to boost the economic welfare of U.S. industries, making them non-remedial (Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00533).

The U.S. urged the Court of International Trade to sustain the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case accepting minutes-late submissions, given that no party filed comments opposing the remand. Submitting its May 5 comments at CIT, DOJ said Commerce fully followed court instructions in accepting the late submissions and reverting to partial adverse facts available rather than full AFA (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi v. U.S., CIT #21-00045).

Judge Mark Barnett, chief judge at the Court of International Trade, reassigned 14 customs cases from Judge Thomas Aquilino to Judge Timothy Stanceu, in a May 5 order. The cases were brought by importer Mast Industries and challenge the classification of ladies' knitted tops with a built-in shelf bra (see 2205020058) (Mast Industries v. United States, CIT #01-00859, #02-00198, #02-00199, #02-00200, #03-00428, #03-00714, #03-00879, #04-00274, #05-00025, #07-00112, #07-00159, #10-00053, #10-00227, #11-00024).

The Court of International Trade should disregard the government's motion to dismiss steel importer Rimco's challenge to the antidumping and countervailing duties it paid, Rimco argued in a May 4 reply brief. Since the importer's case is really a constitutional challenge over excessive fines, Rimco argued that it properly filed its action as a response to CBP's assessment of the AD/CVD rather than the Commerce Department's calculations of the duties (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00537).

The Commerce Department properly found that Indian exporter Uttam Galva failed to report an affiliated cross-owned company in a countervailing duty proceeding, warranting the use of adverse facts available and a 588.43% CVD rate, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a May 5 opinion. Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen said the exporter didn't show that the affiliated company's financial statement could rebut the inclusion of 20 subsidy programs supposedly given to it, permitting the subsidies' inclusion in Uttam Galva's rate.

The Court of International Trade in a May 4 confidential order sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case over the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy. In a letter on the opinion, Judge Richard Eaton said that he hopes to release the public version "in the near future" and that litigants should submit their reviews of the opinion to check for business confidential information by May 11. In the case, Commerce stuck by its decision to hit affiliated antidumping respondents Ghigi 1870 and Pasta Zara with an adverse inference over their U.S. payment dates (see 2202280052). However, the agency dropped the adverse inference on the U.S. sales for which Commerce verified the correct date. The result is a weighted-average dumping margin of 91.74% for Ghigi/Zara (Ghigi 1870 S.P.A. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-00023).

The Court of International Trade should toss steel importer Rimco's challenge to the antidumping and countervailing duties it paid for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, proposed defendant-intervenor Accuride argued in a May 4 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The case should be dismissed because CIT isn't the proper jurisdiction for the importer's challenge to the Commerce Department's decisions, the company argued (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00537).

Washington state did not simply remove the threat of prosecution over the possession and distribution of marijuana and marijuana "paraphernalia," and in fact legalized it, making importer Keirton USA's import of marijuana "drug paraphernalia" legal, the importer argued in a May 2 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. CBP tried to argue that the importation of such paraphernalia was illegal since Washington merely decriminalized possession of the materials rather than legalizing it. Keirton argued that this is untrue and that CBP admitted as much in a headquarters ruling (Keirton USA v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT #21-00452).

The International Trade Commission erred when it found that revocation of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from Oman would lead to a continuation or recurrence of injury to the domestic PET resin industry within a foreseeable time, Omani exporter OCTAL argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade May 2, OCTAL argued that the ITC violated the law when it either ignored or failed to adequately address contrary evidence relating to whether the revocation of the orders would lead to injury to the U.S. industry (OCTAL Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00135).

The Court of International Trade remanded elements of the Commerce Department's administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. In an April 25 opinion made public May 3 submitted in two cases -- one brought by the sole mandatory respondent NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Co. and the other by Catfish Farmers of America, et al. -- Judge M. Miller Baker sent back parts of the review that deal with Commerce's position over whether Indonesia has a comparable level of economic development to Vietnam, whether the Indian factors of production data are the best available as compared to Indonesia, Commerce's failure to engage with contradicting evidence over NTSF's ratio of whole live fish to fillets and the moisture content of NTSF's fillets.