CBP took exporter LB Wood Cambodia's statements "completely out of context" in an "unceasing attempt to crucify" the company in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion investigation, plaintiff-intervenor Interglobal said in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. CBP ascribed "the worst possible motives" to all the parties to the litigation, including LB Wood, and used "its own misstated presumption as grounds for pole-vaulting" to the conclusion that any evidence that undermines the agency's decisions is "inherently suspect," the brief said (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT #20-03914).

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

Steel company Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company, plaintiff in an antidumping scope challenge, signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results excluding the exporter's dual-stenciled pipe from the scope of the order. In October, the Court of International Trade said that Commerce was wrong to include the dual-stenciled pipe in the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, seeing as there was no International Trade Commission injury determination on line pipe from Thailand (see 2110070029). On remand, Commerce excluded dual-stenciled pipe from the order under respectful protest. Saha Thai said these results comply with the court's orders and should be sustained (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company, Limited v. United States, CIT #20-00133).

State marijuana legalization laws do not create an exemption to the federal ban on importation of drug paraphernalia, the Department of Justice said in a Jan. 31 filing at the Court of International Trade. Arguing against an importer's motion for judgment in the case, as well as its own cross-motion for judgment in November (see 2111100047), DOJ says an exemption from the federal ban at 21 USC 863 for any "person authorized by local, state, or federal law to manufacture, possess, or distribute such item" is not triggered by state laws that legalize marijuana across the board (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT #21-00287).

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).

OtterBox filed a complaint with the Court of International Trade on Feb. 1, seeking to reclaim interest on tariffs it paid as part of prior disclosures on entries that have since been reclassified in its favor. Ottberbox argues that CBP has incorrectly withheld interest when returning overpayments after CIT ruled in OtterBox's favor in a tariff classification case on cellphone cases. The complaint accuses CBP of stalling in its obligation to “refund all duties overpaid, plus interest, as provided by law.”

The Commerce Department must either conduct verification in an antidumping case, even if virtually, or more fully explain why it didn't conduct virtual verification in the face of a request to do so, the Court of International Trade said in a Feb. 2 decision. Judge Stephen Vaden expressed doubts over whether Commerce could complete the latter option, given that the agency failed to respond to the request for virtual verification. Commerce said no verification was conducted due to COVID-19-related restrictions. Vaden lambasted Commerce over this rationale given high-level U.S. officials' trips to India, the location of the would-be verification.

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).

The Court of International Trade upheld for the second time the Commerce Department's decision that no benefit was conferred to South Korean steel companies through the provision of electricity. In a decision written on Jan. 21 but made public on Feb. 1, Judge Mark Barnett sustained Commerce's decision after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded it for unlawfully relying on price discrimination instead of a thorough fair-market principles evaluation. Barnett said Commerce has now addressed the Federal Circuit's concerns.