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.
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).
In a June 29 opinion, the Court of International Trade ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over one of 12 entries of plywood from China in a customs case since the importer only protested its first liquidation, but did not protest a second reliquidation. The lawsuit over the remaining 11 entries that the importer fully protested continues. The importer, Bral Corporation, says the imported plywood was defective and should therefore be reassessed duties at 18% of its original value.
Uttam Galva Steels, mandatory respondent in a countervailing duty administrative review on corrosion-resistant steel products from India, will appeal an April 29 Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available to determine its countervailing duty rate, according to its June 25 notice of appeal. Judge Leo Gordon said the use of AFA for Uttam Galva and not the other mandatory respondent in the review was justified since Uttam Galva failed to provide information about its affiliation with Lloyds Steel Industry (see 2104300045). Uttam Galva was saddled with a 588.42% CVD rate (Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, CIT #19-00044).
The Department of Justice seeks a stay from the Court of International Trade of the liquidation of PrimeSource's entries pending DOJ's appeal of CIT's decision that struck down President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 tariffs onto steel and aluminum “derivatives,” it said in a June 9 motion for partial stay of judgment.
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).
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).
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
A customs case in the Court of International Trade has been stayed for a three-month period pending a related CBP decision, according to a June 25 order granting the consent motion to stay. In settlement discussions in the case, questions have arisen over a novel question on the application of the USMCA to natural gas imports, and the delay will allow "plaintiff to seek an administrative ruling" from CBP on the issue. Resolution in the customs case, brought by Emera Energy Services, may come following the CBP proceeding, the company's motion to stay said. Emera's case concerns CBP's denial of the exemption from merchandise processing fees for Canadian-origin goods according to the terms of NAFTA, the 2018 initial complaint said (Emera Energy Services, Inc. v. United States, CIT #18-00074).
Commerce Wrongly Found Affiliation Between Aluminum Sheet Producer and Input Supplier, Exporter Says
Oman Aluminum Rolling Co. (OARC) is not affiliated with a supplier of a key common alloy aluminum sheet input despite the owner of OARC also owning 40% of the input producer, OARC said in a June 25 complaint in the Court of International Trade. The Commerce Department's incorrect conclusion of an affiliation led to the agency's application of adverse facts available (AFA) in an antidumping duty investigation of aluminum sheet from Oman, the exporter said. The court should remand this finding for further consideration along with Commerce's use of AFA, because OARC complied with all proceedings in the AD investigation, OARC said (Oman Aluminum Rolling Company LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00266).