A company challenging CBP's finding that it evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on xanthan gum should have its lawsuit tossed because it failed to appeal CBP's denial of its protest on the relevant entries, even though the importer filed its case under CIT's Section 1581(c) jurisdiction, which covers AD/CVD proceedings, the Department of Justice said in a Sept. 22 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (All One God Faith, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00164).

The Commerce Department's mandatory respondent selection process in a countervailing duty case on wood flooring resembled "Russian roulette" due to fundamental errors in the CBP data used to make the respondent picks, plaintiffs in a case at the Court of International Trade said in four briefs (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03885).

Untethering the six-year statute of limitations for customs bonds from the date an entry is liquidated would impair the ability of customs sureties to function, and CBP’s attempt to collect on a bond issued by Aegis Security Insurance eight years after liquidation is an unreasonable delay that would cause real harm to the surety, Aegis said in a brief filed Sept. 16 at the Court of International Trade.

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.

The Court of International Trade said the Commerce Department had sufficient evidence in its changed circumstances review that found that the situation had not changed regarding countervailable subsidies for Argentina's biodiesel industry. Judge Gary Katzmann, in a Sept. 21 opinion, also held that Commerce, which originally found changed circumstances but later switched back to a finding of no changed circumstances, acted in accordance with the law.

The Court of International Trade rejected an importer's bid for reconsideration of its challenge of the countervailing duty rate assessed on its tire imports. The court found for the second time that the importer lacked proper jurisdiction due to an untimely filed protest of a liquidation decision. “The lesson is both clear and stark: Don’t sit on your rights,” Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden said.

The Commerce Department released a final rule making extensive changes to its antidumping and countervailing duty regulations, including on scope and anti-circumvention inquiries. Currently scheduled for publication Sept. 20, the final rule is intended to “strengthen the administration and enforcement of AD/CVD laws, make such administration and enforcement more efficient, and to create new enforcement tools for Commerce to address circumvention and evasion of trade remedies.”

The Department of Justice and two Alaska shipping companies squared off over a lesser-known element of the Jones Act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in a fight for a preliminary injunction against CBP penalties for seafood shipments. Recently granted expedited consideration by the court, both parties submitted their briefs over the PI and a temporary restraining order in a four-day span following the order. DOJ and the two companies, Kloosterboer International Forwarding and Alaska Reefer Management, also debated whether the companies' claims that CBP violated their due process rights when imposing the penalties had a likelihood of succeeding.

The Commerce Department released a final rule making extensive changes to its antidumping and countervailing duty regulations, including on scope and anti-circumvention inquiries. Currently scheduled for publication Sept. 20, the final rule is intended to “strengthen the administration and enforcement of AD/CVD laws, make such administration and enforcement more efficient, and to create new enforcement tools for Commerce to address circumvention and evasion of trade remedies.”

The U.S. and two respondents in an antidumping duty review backed the Commerce Department's decision to drop a particular market situation determination on South Korean steel, in recently filed briefs, arguing the agency relied on what evidence it had after the Court of International Trade ruled against evidence upon which it had originally relied to make the finding (SeAH Steel Co., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00086).