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.

The 1974 Trade Act “does not authorize” the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to increase the “original” Section 301 lists 1 and 2 tariffs on Chinese goods under the “circumstances present” in the lists 3 and 4A duties, argued Akin Gump lawyers for sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, in their final written brief Nov. 15 at the Court of International Trade before the litigation moves to oral argument Feb. 1, 2022. HMTX and Jasco, plus the thousands of complaints their September 2020 lawsuit sparked, seek to get the lists 3 and 4A tariffs thrown out and the paid duties refunded with interest.

President Donald Trump's decision to revoke a tariff exclusion granted to bifacial solar panels is a "clear misconstruction" of the law since the law permits only trade liberalizing alterations to the existing safeguard measures, the Court of International Trade said Nov. 16, reversing the revocation of the exclusion.

The Court of International Trade struck down the U.S. Trade Representative's attempt to withdraw an exclusion on bifacial solar panels from the Section 201 safeguard measures on solar cells in a Nov. 17 decision. Judge Gary Katzmann found that USTR lacked the statutory authority to withdraw the exclusion. The opinion is the second in as many days over the Trump administration's termination of the exclusion, following a Nov. 16 decision that struck down the presidential proclamation issued after CIT imposed a preliminary injunction on USTR's action.

Antidumping petitioner Wheatland Tube Company and the Department of Justice will appeal a Court of International Trade ruling on the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, the petitioner and DOJ said in two Nov. 15 notices of appeal. In the case, CIT found that the Commerce Department cannot make a cost-based particular market situation adjustment in the sales-below-cost test. On remand, Commerce dropped the PMS adjustment but continued to find that a PMS existed in Thailand (see 2106010026). The case is being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #19-00208).

CBP erred in its classification of importer Alpi International's stress toys, since the agency's classification decision cut against its practice regarding the same toys for nearly 30 years, Alpi argued in its Nov. 12 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade (Alpi International, Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00064). Since 1993, Alpi imported Squeezies stress toys under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9503.00.90, which provides for toys. This changed in November 2019, however, when CBP then changed its classification decision, instead liquidating the stress toys under HTS subheading 3926.40.0090. CBP said that the toys fit under this subheading since they are not shaped like a ball and ornamental plastic statuettes. Alpi argued that the toys are more accurately described under its preferred HTS subheading and that CBP failed to give the toys the disputed classification throughout the years it was being imported. As early as July 2018, CBP examined the toys and came up with the decision that they should be classified under subheading 9503.00.0090, the complaint said. Lastly, CBP violated its past practice by failing to classify the toys under Alpi's preferred classification, the company said.

The International Trade Commission's finding that imports of methionine from Spain and Japan injured the domestic methionine industry is not based on substantial evidence and should be remanded, exporter Adisseo Espana and its U.S. subsidiary argued in a Nov. 12 complaint to the Court of International Trade. In finding domestic industry harm, the ITC spurned the commission's own traditional quarterly price comparisons in favor of "less reliable, anecdotal evidence," Adisseo said (Adisseo Espana S.A., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00562).

Importer Valeo North America's lawsuit seeking to compel the Commerce Department to issue a scope ruling should not be dismissed because, though Commerce did eventually issue a scope ruling, the ruling was not lawful, the company argued in a Nov. 15 brief at the Court of International Trade. Though Commerce argued that the scope ruling means CIT no longer has jurisdiction over Valeo's case, the importer says that scope ruling was invalid because it did not follow the framework set by Commerce's scope regulations (Valeo North America, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00426).

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 16 ruled against President Donald Trump's decision to revoke an exclusion for bifacial panels from Section 201 safeguard duties on solar cells. The trade court ruled his proclamation revoking the exclusion, issued in the midst of litigation over a similar action previously taken by the U.S. Trade Representative, was a "clear misconstruction" of the law and amounted to action outside the president's authority. The court said that the law only permits the president to make "trade-liberalizing modifications" to existing safeguards.

Importer Strategic Import Supply will appeal an April Court of International Trade ruling that found that the 180-day deadline for CBP protests runs from the date of liquidation, rather than the date CBP received updated assessment instructions from the Commerce Department (see 2104210066). Per a Nov. 11 notice of appeal, Stragetic Import Supply will take its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The importer challenged CBP's assessment of countervailing duties on its imports of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. Judge Stephen Vaden dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the 180-day protest deadline is not extended even after Commerce amended the rates set in the relevant CV duty administrative review (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. United States, CIT #20-03762).