Home Depot on Jan. 10 dropped its lawsuit in the Court of International Trade challenging the president's authority to expand Section 232 national security tariffs beyond procedural deadlines. The U.S. Supreme Court this week denied a petition for writ of certiorari from steel nail maker Oman Fasteners, marking the sixth time the court has declined to address whether President Donald Trump legally expanded Section 232 duties on steel and aluminum derivatives (see 2401080037). Counsel for Home Depot confirmed in an email that its case was abandoned following the Supreme Court's most recent rejection (Home Depot USA v. U.S., CIT # 22-00014).
Court of International Trade activity
An Indian stainless steel flanges exporter sought Jan. 8 to have the Court of International Trade reconsider part of its opinion upholding the company’s adverse facts available antidumping duty rate from the 2018-19 administrative review on its products (Kisaan Die Tech Private Ltd. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00512).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department is set to lower the countervailing duty for two Chinese solar cell exporters, removing adverse facts available rates for certain programs and changing several cost calculation methods, it said in remand results filed with the Court of International Trade (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00231).
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit questioned the claim that the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement bars a class-action lawsuit against U.S. companies and their officials. The suit, brought by Peruvian citizens, alleges that a mineral smelting and refining complex in Peru caused environmental damage, harming the individuals (Sr. Kate Reid v. The Doe Run Resources Corp., 8th Cir. # 23-1625).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Jan. 11 on AD/CVD proceedings:
On Jan. 8, the U.S. moved to dismiss an importer’s claim contesting CBP's decision to liquidate nine of its picture frame moulding entries, saying the Court of International Trade lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case because the liquidations were related to the importer's prior disclosure (Larson-Juhl US v. U.S., CIT # 23-00032).
The U.S. defended its right not to turn over parts of the administrative record in a case on the decision to add exporter Ninestar Corp. to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, saying that the record is protected by the "informer's privilege" or is "law-enforcement sensitive" (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
The U.S. defended the results, on voluntary remand, of its antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany, saying the Commerce Department wasn't allowed to adjust its calculations of an exporter’s costs of production in response to a particular market situation (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00077).