A set of domestic steel producers will not be allowed to intervene in six challenges to the Commerce Department's denials of Section 232 tariff exclusions to steel importers, following a May 25 decision from the Court of International Trade. "Nevertheless," said Judge Miller Baker as he denied their motions to intervene, "the Court reiterates its willingness to entertain motions to appear as amici curiae."

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's remand results reversing a scope ruling that included ready to assemble kitchen cabinets under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood products from China, in a May 27 opinion. Judge Gary Katzmann had originally remanded on the question of whether the scope request from petitioners in the case was specific enough to be accepted, and upon further examination Commerce found that it was not. None of the litigants challenged the remand redetermination.

Domestic manufacturers and producers of a wide range of goods covered by antidumping duty orders filed motions for judgment May 24 seeking court orders that CBP distribute delinquency interest that they say should be paid to affected domestic producers under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000.

The Commerce Department erred in its second remand results in an antidumping case when it departed from the "expected method" for calculating an all-other respondent AD duty rate, defendant-intervenors, led by Catfish Farmers of America, said in comments on the remand results dated May 24. The industry trade group argued that Commerce misunderstood CIT's remand directions when it switched to the "other reasonable method" approach under protest. Instead, the court sought only further explanation, it said (GODACO Seafood Joint Stock Company, et al., v. United States, CIT #21-00063).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

A group of steel importers, after suffering a defeat in the Court of International Trade, brought their broad challenge to the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that the statute includes procedural requirements that were ignored in President Donald Trump's expansion of the tariffs. Filing its opening brief on May 24, the importers say that plain use of the mandatory word "shall" throughout Section 232 means the procedural requirements, such as an underlying report from the Commerce Department precipitating tariff action, are required. The steel importers also again argued that the commerce secretary's report is considered final agency action, ready for judicial review (Universal Steel Products, Inc. et al., v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1726).

The Court of International Trade erred in relying on "bypass" liquidations when evaluating the established classification treatment of bicycle seat imports, Kent International argued in a May 21 reply brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. When determining whether an established classification treatment exists, CBP can only consider liquidations in which a Customs officer has made a determination, it said. In this case, CBP incorrectly looked at bypass liquidations, which are processed automatically without review by a CBP officer, it said. The bike seat importer said in its appeal that the imported goods should be classified according to CBP's established treatment in subheading 9401, which would allow them to enter duty-free (Kent International, Inc., v. United States, Federal Circuit #21-1065).

Building materials company Bruskin International made its first arguments to the Federal Circuit in a challenge to a change to the scope during an antidumping duty investigation, claiming that the Commerce Department made numerous and significant procedural errors in the scope modification in question, in an opening brief filed May 14.

The Commerce Department failed to follow the Court of International Trade's remand orders in attempting to justify its same adverse facts available determination in an antidumping case, Vietnamese fish exporters argued in their May 21 comments on the agency's remand results. "In its haste to apply total AFA, Commerce has not actually considered and explained all of the relevant record evidence, including that which fairly detracts from its decision," the exporters said. "This was unlawful"(Hung Vuong Corporation, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00055).

The Customs Surety Coalition called foul on a CBP attempt to collect unpaid antidumping duties eight years after the relevant entries liquidated, saying the “devastating impact on the surety program is obvious,” in a May 20 amicus brief filed in the Court of International Trade. Stepping in to help defend Aegis Security Insurance Co., the coalition argued that if the court were to accept CBP's position, the statute of limitations on duty payments would be eliminated, allowing the agency to use the law to "absurd ends." CSC was joined by its four coalition members -- the International Trade Surety Association, the National Association of Surety Bond Producers, Inc., the Surety & Fidelity Association of American and the Customs Surety Association -- in its brief (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).