OtterBox can't get refunds on a prior disclosure it made on imports of smartphone covers, even though it prevailed in a Court of International Trade case on entries of the same product, the Department of Justice said in a June 25 reply brief to OtterBox's motion to enforce the court's judgment. DOJ said CIT does not have jurisdiction over the prior disclosure in dispute, making OtterBox's bid an attempt to get a refund to which it is not entitled (Otter Products, LLC v. United States, CIT #13-00269).

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 Court of International Trade erred in rejecting aluminum extrusion manufacturer Kingtom Aluminio's bid to intervene in a case challenging the determination of duty evasion in which Kingtom was the company alleged to be aiding in the evasion, Kingtom said in a June 25 brief requesting the court's reconsideration. Kingtom says that the court overlooked Kingtom's interest in the case and failed to consider that Kingtom shares a legal claim with the plaintiff (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00198).

The Solar Energy Industries Association continued to push back on the government's arguments that President Donald Trump properly considered the domestic industry's views when he removed an exemption to Section 201 tariffs on bifacial solar panels. The revocation of the tariff exemption should be reversed, plaintiffs challenging the president's actions said in a June 25 brief. Responding to a filing from the Department of Justice defending the decision to pull the tariff exemption, plaintiffs, led by the SEIA, further alleged procedural shortcomings in the president's actions (Solar Energy Industries Association et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03941).

Illegally subsidized imports of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Vietnam are causing injury to U.S. industry, the International Trade Commission said in a June 23 press release on its final injury determination in the ongoing countervailing duty investigation, which gives the green light to Commerce to issue a countervailing duty order based on currency undervaluation for the first time since it issued regulations on the subject in 2020 (see 2002030016).

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.

Counsel for an alleged transshipper in a duty evasion scheme, Kingtom Aluminio, plans to ask the Court of International Trade to reconsider a decision it made to deny the company the right to intervene in a case challenging the determination of evasion. In an Enforce and Protect Act case concerning duties on aluminum extrusions from China, CBP found that importer Global Aluminum Distributor evaded the duties by bringing in the extrusions via Kingtom in the Dominican Republic. Global Aluminum says that Kingtom was the actual manufacturer of the goods in question (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00198).

The Court of International Trade in a June 22 decision dismissed all but one of importer Maple Leaf Marketing's claims against Section 232 steel tariffs levied against goods shipped to Canada for further processing then reimported to the U.S. Finding that the president has broad authority to determine the "nature of the action necessary to adjust imports that threaten the national security," a three-judge panel tossed Maple Leaf's challenges to the imposition of the tariffs on Canada, which Maple Leaf had argued was untimely, as well as to the assessment of Section 232 duties on steel articles qualifying for repair and alteration treatment under Chapter 98, among other things.

Target's complaint filed in the Court of International Trade challenging the court's ability to order the reliquidation of imports past 90 days after their initial liquidation by CBP “masquerades as a motion” for CIT to relitigate this issue, the Department of Justice said in a June 22 motion to dismiss the case. The court's decision in the underlying case, Home Products International Inc. v. United States, already addressed Target's complaint, so the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, DOJ said.

The Commerce Department says total adverse facts available is not warranted in an antidumping duty investigation on silicon metal from Malaysia since mandatory respondent PMB Silicon did not actively withhold information, the agency said in a June 16 memorandum issued alongside its final affirmative determination in the investigation.