Section 232 national security tariffs are not remedial and should not be deducted from an antidumping duty respondent's U.S. price, and their inclusion in that price does not constitute double counting of duties, AD petitioner Nucor Corp. argued in a May 13 reply brief that came in response to arguments to the contrary from Nippon Steel Corp. (Nippon Steel Corporation v. U.S., CIT #21-00533).

The Court of International Trade issued a May 17 opinion addressing two cases brought by Voestalpine USA and Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, the importer and purchaser of entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, respectively. The cases both concern reliquidation requests on various steel entries without the Section 232 duties, based on the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security's approval of exclusion requests. The exclusions each originally contained an invalid Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading, but by the time the error was discovered in both cases, CBP had liquidated the entries with the duties.

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

Importer Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing will appeal to the Federal Circuit a March Court of International Trade opinion ruling that CBP properly classified eight models of gloves as knit textile gloves, rather than as gloves made of plastics, according to a May 13 notice of appeal. At CIT,, Judge Timothy Stanceu said that CBP correctly classified the gloves, which were imported from China and South Korea in 2015 (see 2203280037) (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing v. U.S., CIT #16-00150).

Importer Root Sciences will appeal an October 2021 Court of International Trade opinion that said that the court did not have jurisdiction over CBP's seizure of Root's goods. According to the May 13 notice of appeal, Root will take its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court ruled that since the seizure of an import does not deem a product excluded, thus precluding any protestable event, jurisdiction is barred at CIT for seized goods (see 2110070022). Root filed the case after CBP seized one of its cannabis crude extract recovery machines as "drug paraphernalia" (Root Sciences v. United States, CIT #21-00123).

The Commerce Department violated the law in finding that Nur Gemicilik is a cross-owned input supplier of Turkish exporter and mandatory countervailing duty review respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, Kaptan argued in a May 12 complaint at the Court of International Trade. While Nur provided Kaptan with scrap generated from its shipbuilding enterprise, the amount was "extremely miniscule," precluding Nur from being a cross-owned input supplier, the complaint said (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #22-00149).

The Court of International Trade in a May 13 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's drop of facts available after the court made the agency give antidumping duty respondent Hyundai Steel Co. the chance to explain a discrepancy between the reporting of two data fields. The petitioner, U.S. Steel Corp., argued that the results should not be sustained given Hyundai's shifting narratives on the discrepancy. Judge Richard Eaton was not persuaded, however, arguing that since Hyundai gave Commerce the information it requested, the respondent replied to the best of its ability.

The Commerce Department properly found affiliated antidumping duty respondents Ghigi 1870 and Pasta Zara failed to cooperate to the best of their ability in reporting the U.S. payment dates for their pasta sales, the Court of International Trade ruled in a May 4 opinion made public May 13. Returning to the trade court to further explain its use of an adverse inference, Commerce said Ghigi's and Zara's errors in reporting their U.S. payment dates was due to "inattention and carelessness." Judge Richard Eaton agreed, upholding the remand.

The Court of International Trade assigned two customs actions brought by Beverly Hills watchmaker Ildico to Judge Jane Restani, the court said in two May 12 orders. Ildico filed the case to argue that its imported wristwatches within gold bezels and cases and with synthetic sapphires on front and back should be classifiable as wrist watches with precious metal cases of heading 9101, rather than as CBP liquidated them under subheading 9102 as other wrist watches (see 2204290030) (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., #18-00076, -00136).

The Court of International Trade in a May 12 confidential opinion remanded the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation on wood cabinets and vanities from China. In a letter on the opinion, Judge Richard Eaton told litigants to return to the court by May 19 after reviewing the opinion for business confidential information. The case was brought by Chinese exporter Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. to contest Commerce's position on China's Export Buyer's Credit Program and use of a different plywood benchmark for different companies despite the fact that they used the same types of plywood (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00110).