The Commerce Department acted arbitrarily when it denied a retroactive extension to a filing deadline missed by a lawyer suffering from medical issues. a move that would eventually lead to the revocation of an antidumping duty order that had been in place for decades, a domestic producer said in challenging the revocation in a brief filed June 17.

Two steel importers, voestalpine USA and Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, want refunds for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid on imports of alloy steel since the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security published a Section 232 exclusion with the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule code, they said in a June 18 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade. Voestalpine and Bilstein say the HTS error was only remedied after the imports had been liquidated and that no protest option was available to apply the exclusions after liquidation (voestalpine USA LLC et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00290).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Opposing sides in the Section 301 litigation sparred heatedly in the closing minutes of oral argument June 17 (see 2106170061) about the role the plaintiffs’ steering committee should play should the Court of International Trade grant the motion of sample-case plaintiffs HMTX and Jasco for a preliminary injunction to freeze the liquidations of unliquidated customs entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that allowed six individuals from Mali to sue two major food companies, Nestle USA and Cargill, Inc., over the claim that they had been trafficked as child slaves to cocoa farms in the Ivory Coast that provide cocoa to the companies. In a June 17 opinion, SCOTUS found that since the individuals' injuries occurred overseas and that Nestle and Cargill were only accused of "general corporate activity," the case was an "impermissible extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute."

A Court of International Trade decision eliminating the extension of Section 232 duties to steel and aluminum "derivatives" has formally been appealed by the U.S. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to a June 17 docketing notice. The CIT ruling, decided by a three-judge panel at the trade court, found that President Donald Trump violated statutory time limits when expanding the tariffs to the derivative products. Importer PrimeSource Building Products successfully argued that the tariff expansion was announced well after the 105-day deadline for tariff action following the initial Commerce Department report that led to the initial imposition of the Section 232 duties in 2018 (see 2104050049) (PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States, Federal Circuit, #21-2066).

No serious gaps in the record exist proving that plywood producer Shelter Forest did not develop its plywood after the Commerce Department issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood products from China, the Department of Justice said in a brief June 16. Contradicting comments on Commerce's remand results from petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood, DOJ backed Commerce's remand decision to reverse its affirmative determination that Shelter Forest's plywood circumvented the AD/CV duties.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping administrative review of an antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products from Turkey, dropping any adjustments to the sales-below-cost test it made after finding a particular market situation, in a one-page June 16 decision.

Russian and Swiss exporters Novolipetsk Steel Public Joint Stock Co. and NOVEX Trading (Swiss) SA will appeal an April 13 Court of International Trade decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a June 14 notice of appeal said. The appeal comes after the exporters lost their challenge to the final determination in the 2017-18 antidumping administrative review of certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products from Russia. Judge Claire Kelly dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, saying they lacked standing because they had no entries during the period of review and didn't contend they were resellers of the subject merchandise (Novolipetsk Steel Public Joint Stock Co. et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-00031).