A clear reading of the law allows for an importer to bring in goods deemed "drug paraphernalia" federally if they are legal at the state level, Washington-based importer Keirton USA told the Court of International Trade in its Jan. 5 motion for judgment. Seeking to get back its imports of cannabis processors from CBP, Keirton told the trade court that the exemption allowing for the import of drug paraphernalia where it is legal at the state level is "plain and unambiguous and must be applied accordingly" (Keirton USA, Inc. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT #21-00452).

The Department of Justice opposed logistics company Lineage Logistics Holdings' bid to appear in a case over Jones Act violations, arguing that the proposed amicus brief filing does not raise any new issues, instead giving "additional perspectives on arguments already advanced." Urging the court to deny the proposed brief entry into the case, DOJ told the court to look at other pleadings "for more detailed and thorough exploration of the issues" (Kloosterboer International Forwarding LLC, et al. v. United States, D. Alaska #3:21-00198).

The Commerce Department found in Jan. 4 remand results that dual-stenciled standard pipe and line pipe aren't to be included within the scope of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Flipping its position following remand instructions from the Court of International Trade, Commerce nonetheless expressed a series of reservations over its decision to do so, dubbing the remand order "problematic."

Section 232 allows the president to expand tariff action beyond procedural time limits laid out in the law, as he did when he expanded the tariffs to cover steel and aluminum derivatives over a year after the tariffs were initially imposed, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Jan. 3 brief. Relying heavily on a recent CAFC opinion on an increase of tariffs on Turkish steel, DOJ said the president is allowed to expand Section 232 tariffs to products beyond the ones laid out in the original commerce secretary report as long as it's part of the original "plan of action" (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2066).

The Commerce Department properly denied antidumping duty respondent Icdas a duty drawback adjustment due to the fact that the respondent gave no evidence that its Inward Processing Certificates (i.e., requests to gain the drawback) were closed, the Department of Justice told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 30 brief. DOJ argued that the denial doesn't cut against past practice, and even if it did, would be a reasonable position to hold (Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi v. U.S., CIT #21-00306).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top 20 stories published in 2021 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference numbers.

Auto parts and tools exported to Canada for use at auto races then re-imported don't qualify for duty-free treatment under a U.S. goods returned tariff provision for "tools of the trade," said the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 30 opinion. Though Porsche Motorsport North America contended that the goods were exported to support race teams, CIT Judge Stephen Vaden found that the auto parts and tools were exported to generate sales to race teams rather than for a professional purpose, as required under subheading 9801.00.8500.

The Commerce Department's decision to rely on an antidumping duty respondent's actual costs of its non-prime products is backed by substantial evidence and in line with the law, the Court of International Trade said in its first decision of the new year. The trade court said this complies with a key U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling, Dillinger France S.A. v. U.S.

The Commerce Department violated the law when it initiated an antidumping and countervailing duty investigation into quartz surface products from India since it didn't have the requisite industry support, importer M S International told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Dec. 20 opening brief. Urging the appellate court to overturn a Court of International Trade decision that found that Commerce legally interpreted what constitutes a "producer" of QSPs, MSI argued that Commerce erred by excluding fabricators from the industry support calculation (Pokarna Engineered Stone Limited v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1077).