The Court of International Trade ordered in an April 15 opinion that exporter Oman Fasteners shall make duty deposits for potential Section 232 steel and aluminum duty liability on all entries affected by its case challenging the validity of certain Section 232 duties. Oman Fasteners requested that the court should establish and administer an escrow account throughout the stay period pending an appeal of the court's decision. A three-judge panel said that the court was not convinced that setting up an escrow account is better than depositing estimated Section 232 duties for affected entries.

The U.S. was granted a voluntary remand in an antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion case at the Court of International Trade. In its motion requesting the remand, CBP told the court that a remand is needed in light of arguments by the plaintiffs that the evasion finding is based on insufficient evidence. In particular, DOJ said that CBP needed to address logistical gaps in the feasibility of an alleged transshipment scheme and criticism of perceived inconsistencies in the materials submitted by the importers and the company accused of transshipping. Each of the three plaintiffs' counsel consented to the move (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00198).

An individual who is challenging her failed customs broker test without a lawyer (see 2202170065) responded to DOJ's motion for a more definitive statement, in an April 14 brief at the Court of International Trade. The unusual filing responds to the U.S.'s request for a more clear legal claim by arguing that Brenda Smith, the executive assistant commissioner at CBP, made mistakes when responding to the plaintiff, Shuzhen Zhong, in her appeal of her customs broker test results. The case requests a review of the six questions that Zhong appealed to CBP in the test. Zhong took particular issue with CBP's getting both her address and gender wrong when returning the results of her appeal. In the filing, Zhong requested to be supplied with a pro bono lawyer (Shuzhen Zhong v. United States, CIT #22-00041).

Allegheny Technologies Inc. was granted refunds for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid on various entries following court-annexed mediation at the Court of International Trade, according to an April 13 stipulated judgment from the court. The case is the second of its kind to result in refunds for Section 232 duties paid following an initial challenge to the Commerce Department's denial of duty exclusion requests (Allegheny Technologies v. U.S., CIT #20-03923).

The Court of International Trade in an April 14 opinion denied steel company SSAB Enterprises the right to intervene in a challenge to a countervailing duty review. Although the company requested the Commerce Department open the review, it "sat on the sidelines" during the proceeding, Judge M. Miller Baker said in the opinion. "Commerce's regulations ... require that a would-be litigant do more than just show up."

Oman Fasteners must make duty deposits for potential Section 232 steel and aluminum duty liability on all entries affected by its case challenging the validity of certain Section 232 duties, the Court of International Trade said in an April 15 opinion. Oman Fasteners requested that the court establish and administer an escrow account to give security on its potential Section 232 duty liability throughout the stay period pending an appeal of the court's decision. A three-judge panel said that the court was not convinced that setting up an escrow account is better than depositing estimated 232 duties for affected entries.

Companies have the right to judicially challenge an antidumping duty investigation's final determination even if it is subject to a suspension agreement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a series of four opinions on April 14. The court issued the opinions together as they all pertain to the same antidumping investigation on Mexican tomatoes. While the appellate court sent the cases back establishing jurisdiction for the claims against the AD investigation's final determination, the court did dismiss some claims against the termination of a prior suspension agreement and the new suspension agreement.

The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to hear challenges to the Commerce Department's final determination in antidumping cases subject to suspension agreements, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a series of four opinions issued April 14. Throughout the four cases, various U.S. and Mexican tomato producers challenged the final determination in the antidumping investigation into Mexican tomatoes, which was subject to an antidumping suspension agreement. The cases also challenged Commerce's withdrawal from a previous suspension agreement and the agency's decision to continue the antidumping investigation following this withdrawal.

The Court of International Trade in an April 14 opinion denied steel company SSAB Enterprises' bid to intervene in a countervailing duty review challenge, holding that since the company "sat on the sidelines" during the review, it didn't have the right to join the case. SSAB requested the review the 2019 CVD review of cut-to-length carbon steel plate from South Korea, but it didn't participate in it. "Commerce’s regulations, however, require that a would-be litigant do more than just show up," the opinion said. "Because SSAB did not actively participate in the review, the court denies its motion to intervene."

The Commerce Department's decision not to grant exporter Ningbo Qixin a separate rate in an antidumping duty matter for not having any sales during the period of review "is logically inconsistent" since the agency is supposed to then rescind the antidumping review, the exporter told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an April 12 opening brief. Ningbo Qixin also argued that the Court of International Trade improperly denied the appellant's motion to file new factual information out of time since "extenuating circumstances" warranted another shot to submit the information (Canadian Solar, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2162).