The Court of International Trade found again that President Donald Trump violated procedural time limits when expanding Section 232 tariffs to steel and aluminum “derivatives,” in a June 10 decision. Citing CIT's prior case on the topic, PrimeSource Building Products Inc. v. United States (see 2104050049), Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves and Timothy Stanceu awarded refunds for tariffs paid to steel fastener importers Oman Fasteners, Huttig Building Products and Huttig Inc. In Oman Fasteners, LLC. et al. v. United States, the court ruled that the president illegally announced the tariff expansion after the 105-day deadline laid out by Section 232, but denied the plaintiff's other two claims, without prejudice, on the procedural violations of the tariff expansion. The panel's third member, Judge Miller Baker, concurred in part and dissented in part.

Importers must file protests to preserve their ability to obtain refunds under exclusions from Section 301 tariffs, the Court of International Trade said in a June 11 decision. Dismissing a lawsuit from importers ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, Judge Miller Baker found the court did not have jurisdiction to hear their challenge since the importers did not timely file protests of the CBP liquidations assessing the Section 301 duties.

Coinciding with an increased use of CBP's Enforce and Protect Act process for investigating possible antidumping and/or countervailing duty evasion is a feeling among importers that EAPA action is largely skewed toward the alleger. “Typically, the first notice the importer receives is after the agency has already accepted the allegation and imposed draconian ‘Interim Measures’ that treat the importers’ goods as subject to anti-dumping and countervailing duties, a process" that "has proven to be massively unjust,” Mary Hodgins, a lawyer at Morris Manning, said by email. The process is facing increased scrutiny, with several lawsuits that raise due process questions making their way through the courts.

Antidumping duty China-wide rates can still be based on adverse facts available (AFA) even if no members of the countrywide entity were found to be uncooperative in an administrative review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a June 10 decision reversing a decision to the contrary from the Court of International Trade.

JSW Steel (USA) is accusing three U.S. steelmakers of a conspiracy and group "boycott" to hinder JSW's ability to make and sell competing steel products, according to a June 8 complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Following the imposition of Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum in 2018, JSW claims U.S. Steel, Nucor and AK Steel owner Cleveland-Cliffs, which control 80% of domestic steel capacity, colluded to refuse to sell raw material to JSW.

The Commerce Department can apply total adverse facts available for a mandatory respondent's failure to provide its factors of production (FPO) data on a control number (CONNUM)-specific basis in an antidumping case, the Court of International Trade ruled in a June 9 opinion. Judge Leo Gordon, in a consolidated action challenging an antidumping administrative review on certain steel nails from China, said that Commerce had the right to switch to a CONNUM-specific reporting requirement and that the mandatory respondent should have known about this switch. Gordon also found that Commerce was justified in using a total AFA rate for two mandatory respondents to calculate the non-individually reviewed respondent rate.

The Commerce Department's decision on remand to reverse its affirmative determination that certain hardwood plywood products from China circumvented antidumping and countervailing duties "defies a wealth of evidence about what actually occurred in the hardwood plywood market," petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood said in June 7 comments on Commerce's remand results. Commerce ignored multiple pieces of contradictory evidence in making its determination following a Court of International Trade opinion remanding the case and made a determination that undermines its own conclusion that certain hardwood plywood was not "later-developed" after the AD/CVD orders, the coalition said (Shelter Forest International Acquisition, Inc. et al v. United States, CIT #19-00212).

The "U.S. shipping point" must be a location from which tomatoes ship from inside the U.S., and any expenses between the U.S. border and that point should be included in reference prices under the 2019 antidumping duty suspension agreement on Mexican tomatoes, Mexican exporters said in a June 3 memo. The memo responds to allegations of non-compliance during an administrative review of the agreement from the Florida Tomato Exchange, which says imports should be judged based on the price immediately after crossing the border. The FTE's interpretation cuts directly against the plain language of the agreement and uses an interpretation of the term "free on board (FOB) U.S. shipping point" that would lead to "absurd results" in how the agreement is applied, the Mexican growers said.

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 pasta maker found ineligible for an acquired company’s antidumping duty exemption in a 2014 changed circumstances review cannot use that predecessor’s antidumping and countervailing duty rates for entries before the effective date of the final results of that review, CBP said in a recent ruling. Instead, the pasta maker must file at the all others rate for entries before the changed circumstances review took effect, CBP said in HQ H287183, issued March 26 and posted to CBP’s CROSS database June 3.