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.

The Court of International Trade granted the Commerce Department's request to re-review its decision to deny 15 exclusion requests from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, in a Feb. 1 order. Plaintiff NLMK Pennsylvania had consented to the request, even though Commerce's offer only covered 15 of the 54 total exclusion denial challenges made by NLMK. In its order, CIT did shorten the amount of time Commerce has to review the 15 cases from 150 days, as requested by the agency, to 106 days.

Proposed defendant-intervenor U.S. Steel Corporation will appeal a December 2021 Court of International Trade decision that denied the company the right to intervene in a Section 232 exclusion denial challenge. U.S. Steel will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to the Feb. 1 notice of appeal. In the decision, the trade court said that U.S. Steel cannot intervene since it won't be directly affected by the case's outcome and that any harm the company would experience as a result of a Section 232 exclusion being granted would be indirect since the company has no right to the sale of the covered products (see 2112060021) (NLMK Pennsylvania LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00507).

An auto parts importer said the Department of Justice is overcomplicating and misstating the use of its diesel engine nitrogen oxide (NOx) sensors in defense of CBP's classification of the sensors as instruments for chemical analysis under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9027. In a brief filed Jan. 31, Continental Automotive Systems says the NOx sensors, used to measure the amount of nitrogen oxide for emissions purposes, are instead provided for in heading 9026 as measurement devices (Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #18-00026).

Plaintiffs who challenged CBP's liquidation of their entries subject to a pending Enforce and Protect Act investigation are considering a challenge to the Commerce Department's final decision in a related scope ruling, they said in a Jan. 31 status report at the Court of International Trade. The scope inquiry found Vietnam Finewood and Far East American's hardwood plywood products are subject to the antidumping and countervailing duties on hardwood plywood from China (see 2201280051). Subsequently, and after the entries liquidated, CBP said that FEA and a third plaintiff, InterGlobal Forest, evaded the orders. The two now have 30 days to request a review of the EAPA determination. The government, joining the plaintiffs on the status report, says a resolution of this review is expected in June, and so the next status report should be set for a time after this review. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, said that the next status report should come in the next 30 days "after Finewood and FEA have fully considered their appeal against Commerce’s scope determination," the status reports said (Vietnam Finewood Company Limited v. United States, CIT #20-00155).