Following a key decision from the Court of International Trade striking down Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum "derivatives" (see 2104050049), steel nail importer Hilti filed a lawsuit of its own in the court seeking to reap the benefits. In a May 5 complaint, Hilti made several arguments similar to those in PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States, et al. Among other things, Hilti said the already struck-down Section 232 tariff expansion to include steel derivatives was improper because there was no underlying report from the Commerce Department (Hilti, Inc., v. U.S. et al., CIT # 21-00216).

The Court of International Trade on May 5 sustained a recalculation of an exporter’s antidumping duty rate set in a recent administrative review on solar cells from China. The trade court had in October remanded Commerce’s final results of the 2016-17 review to the agency, after finding Commerce improperly applied partial adverse facts available to the rate it assigned to Risen Energy based on the refusal of Risen’s unaffiliated suppliers to cooperate in the review. CIT said AFA rates must promote cooperation and accuracy, and Commerce didn’t explain how Risen’s AFA rate did so. On remand, Commerce switched to neutral facts available for the relevant portion of Risen’s rate calculation, but did so “under respectful protest.” The agency’s “decision not to use partial AFA to calculate Risen’s dumping margin is consistent with the directive … that accuracy must be the driving force behind a decision to draw an adverse inference,” CIT said.

Negative injury determinations that ended antidumping duty investigations on polyethylene terephthalate resin from Brazil, Indonesia, South Korea, Pakistan and Taiwan in 2018 will stand, after the Court of International Trade sustained a remand redetermination from the International Trade Commission that provided further explanation of the ITC’s decisions without any changes to the end result.

Truck and bus tire exporter Guizhou Tyre Co. cited a recent Court of International Trade opinion to argue that it should be given an individual dumping rate in an antidumping investigation of truck and bus tires from China, in an April 30 notice of supplemental authority. Drawing on CIT's April 29 opinion in Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. U.S. (see 2104300079), Guizhou claimed that an argument it made in its own case in CIT directly mirrors one accepted by the court about how de facto government control is determined by the Commerce Department.

The Commerce Department will no longer apply adverse facts available to the antidumping rate for an Indian shrimp exporter, it said in remand results filed May 4 (Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 19-00201). The filing follows a Feb. 3 Court of International Trade decision which found that Commerce did not aid a small, first-time mandatory respondent to an AD case enough and unlawfully applied AFA to the exporter (see 2102030006). Commerce will now use neutral facts available, leading the agency to drop frozen warmwater shrimp exporter Elque Group's dumping margin to 27.66% from 110.9%.

The Court of International Trade issued two decisions related to the application of adverse facts available in antidumping duty proceedings on solar cells from China and cold-rolled steel flat products from South Korea shipped through Vietnam.

Changes made to the Court of International Trade's rules and fees took effect on May 3, according to an earlier notice of the amendments. Alterations to CIT Rules 3, 5, 15, Form 20 and Administrative Order 02-01 are now in force along with changes in fees made to the Schedule of Fees, Rule 74 and Form 10. The attorney admission certificate fee for the original admission of an attorney to practice was raised to $88, from $81.

The Department of Justice wants an entry of plywood imported from China scratched from a customs challenge in the Court of International Trade by BRAL Corporation, since the importer failed to file a protest against the entry's liquidation (BRAL Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00154). In a May 3 memo in support of a partial motion to dismiss, DOJ said the entry, one of 12 in dispute in the case, was reliquidated twice by CBP as the agency attempted to sort out the antidumping and countervailing duties applicable to the plywood imports. Since BRAL did not protest the second reliquidation, yet challenges it in court anyway, the entry should be dismissed from the case for lack of jurisdiction, DOJ said.

A nail importer and the Justice Department have agreed that judgment should be awarded in favor of the importer and the Section 232 tariffs on "derivatives" paid by the importer should be refunded, according to a joint status report filed April 30 (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., CIT # 20-00037). Oman Fasteners and DOJ say the Court of International Trade's recent decision in a case involving PrimeSource is "parallel and substantially similar" to the main issue in Oman Fasteners' lawsuit (see 2104050049). Oman Fasteners and DOJ urged the court to rule in favor of the exporter on the question of the timeliness of the tariff expansion but to dismiss Oman Fasteners' remaining claims. Oman Fasteners also moved that the court “order other appropriate relief, including terminating Plaintffs' obligations to post continuous bonds to cover duties enacted pursuant to” the president's decision to expand the tariffs. Oman Fasteners also filed an unopposed motion for entry of final judgment in the case.

Cannabis processing equipment importer Root Sciences accused the Department of Justice of playing "judicial keep away" with particular customs cases, in an April 30 response to the government's motion to dismiss. Arguing to keep jurisdiction of its case under the Court of International Trade, Root Sciences made the case for why its challenge of the deemed exclusion of a cannabis crude extract recovery machine should remain in the trade court and why DOJ's arguments against that position are disingenuous.