Aluminum extrusion importer Hialeah Aluminum Supply on April 29 filed a Court of International Trade complaint challenging an Enforce and Protect Act final affirmative determination. Hialeah argues that CBP's process in the investigation violated its Fifth Amendment due process rights and violated the agency's own regulations (Hialeah Aluminum Supply, Inc. v. United States, #21-00207).

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

3D-printed guns can now be removed from the State Department-regulated U.S. Munitions List following an April 27 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Penned by judges Jay Bybee and Ryan Nelson, the decision lifts an injunction on regulations issued by President Donald Trump in 2018 to transfer “ghost gun” blueprints from the USML to the less-restrictive Commerce Control List.

Following a court-ordered remand to address due process concerns in an Enforce and Protect Act case, CBP has failed again to provide Royal Brush Manufacturing “notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard,” the importer argued in an April 26 response to CBP's remand redetermination. Despite some changes to comply with the Court of International Trade decision that found fault with CBP's finding that Royal Brush evaded antidumping duties on cased pencils from China by way of transshipment through the Philippines, Royal Brush continued to take issue with CBP's public summaries of key case information and the agency's failure to properly notify the company when new factual information surfaced via a verification report.

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

Aluminum extrusion importer Global Aluminum Distributor filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Enforce and Protect A investigations, becoming the latest to challenge the process for countering antidumping duty evasion. In an April 28 complaint, Global Aluminum said CBP's EAPA process violated procedural requirements and the importer's constitutional rights related to due process and excessive fines, and that CBP is unfairly subjecting a company to two EAPA investigations for the same conduct and entries. Separate from other EAPA complaints, Global Aluminum claims that the duties assessed via the evasion finding constitutes a violation of the Eight Amendment for excessive fines.

An importer’s tariff classification challenge on machinery used in the recycling industry has been designated a test case, according to an order issued by the Court of International Trade April 28 (Vecoplan, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 20-00126). Filed by Vecoplan, the lawsuit challenges CBP’s classification of industrial size-reduction machinery, said the underlying consent motion to designate it as such. CBP had classified the merchandise under subheading 8479.89.9499 (other machine having an individual function, dutiable at 2.5%), while Vecoplan argues for classification under subheading 8479.82.0080 (crushing, grinding, screening, sifting, etc. machines, duty-free). Two other cases filed by Vecoplan seek the same result, and the importer has moved to suspend them under the new test case.

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

The scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders cannot be expanded to include goods that were not part of the International Trade Commission's original injury determination, Thai steel exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company argued in an April 27 reply brief to the Court of International Trade. Citing, among other things, the fact that the ITC's final injury determination did not cover tariff subheadings for dual-stenciled pipe, Saha seeks to overturn the Commerce Department's final scope ruling that dual-stenciled pipe is subject to antidumping duties on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Limited v. U.S., CIT #20-00133). Saha says the trade court is bound by the precedent of a 1998 Federal Circuit decision involving Wheatland Tube.

The Commerce Department essentially “committed fraud” against a Chinese shrimp exporter that had been revoked from an antidumping duty order but, because of Commerce’s own misspelling that the agency refuses to correct, found itself years later participating in an administrative review and being assigned an AD duty cash deposit rate, the exporter said in a brief filed April 26 at the Court of International Trade (Shantou Red Garden Food Processing Co., Ltd. et al v. U.S., CIT # 20-03947).