A group of surety associations should not be able to argue against when the six-year limitations period begins for a customs bond due to their role in "abetting the new shipper bond disaster," a group of domestic agricultural goods producers said in a July 8 amicus brief in the Court of International Trade. The brief was filed to oppose the surety associations' motion to intervene in the lawsuit (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175).

A furniture importer's argument that the Enforce and Protect Act investigation finding it guilty of antidumping duty evasion was unconstitutional is not valid since the importer does not have a protectable interest, the Department of Justice said in a July 9 brief in the Court of International Trade. Since a protectable interest is necessary to claim a due process violation has been committed, Aspects Furniture International's constitutional arguments against the EAPA process fall flat, DOJ said (Aspects Furnitre International, Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-03824).

Two importers of steel grating from China didn't declare the goods as subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders as required, CBP said in a recently posted notice of determination. CBP made the determination following an allegation from Hog Slat that prompted an investigation into Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product under the Enforce and Protect Act. The investigation involved entries of "galvanized steel Tri-Bar Floor product (tribar floors), composed of rolled steel rods welded to another steel cross rod (i.e., a product of two or more pieces of steel joined together by assembly)," CBP said.

Among the recent plethora of lawsuits filed in the Court of International Trade challenging the constitutionality of the Enforce and Protect Act process for investigating evasion of antindumping and countervailing duty orders (see 2106070011), at least one invokes the Eighth Amendment, a rarely litigated part of the U.S. Constitution. Filed by trade lawyer David Craven on behalf of Global Aluminum Distributor, the lawsuit challenges EAPA penalties based on the amendment's prohibition on excessive fines.

The Court of International Trade extended to all unassigned cases a preliminary injunction halting the liquidation of unliquidated entries subject to the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 China tariffs for plaintiffs in the litigation challenging the tariffs, CIT said in a July 6 order. Cases challenging the tariffs continue to trickle in to CIT and, pursuant to an April 28 order, are automatically stayed without being assigned to the master litigation. Chief Judge Mark Barnett penned the extension order shortly after dissenting from the decision to issue the preliminary injunction (see 2107060077).

The Court of International Trade will stop liquidation of unliquidated entries subject to litigation over List 3 and List 4A Section 301 China tariffs, a CIT panel said in a July 6 opinion (Court No. 21-00052). Granting a preliminary injunction, Judges Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves held that questions over limitations on CIT's ability to reliquidate the entries or grant a monetary judgment mean the Section 301 plaintiffs risk irreparable harm in the absence of one. Chief Judge Mark Barnett dissented, arguing that the court does have the power to reliquidate, and that the resulting lack of irreparable harm weighed against granting the injunction.

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.

Many cases challenging findings of antidumping or countervailing duty evasion under the Enforce and Protect Act include claims that the process has violated an importer's constitutional rights, particularly under the Fifth Amendment. Case after case in the Court of International Trade argues elements of the EAPA process -- from the lack of notice provided to an importer that it's under investigation to the insufficient public summaries of proprietary information in the investigation -- violate importers' due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. However, the circumstances under which these claims may actually be heard by CIT may have yet to come, trade lawyers said.

A particular market situation will no longer be part of the dumping margin calculation for oil country tubular goods from Korea after the Commerce Department submitted its remand results to the Court of International Trade on June 30. Commerce dropped the PMS finding after the court said that there was not enough evidence to support the agency's finding that the Korean steel market was heavily subsidized (SeAH Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #19-00086).

The Department of Justice said in June 30 oral argument before the Court of International Trade that its positions on the proper jurisdiction for cases challenging either the exclusion or seizure of goods identified as drug paraphernalia are consistent in district courts and CIT. If an import is excluded from entry by CBP, CIT has jurisdiction. If the good is seized, the district court has jurisdiction, it said. DOJ argues that CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear a case brought by Root Sciences since CBP seized a cannabis crude extract recovery machine from the importer rather than excluding it (Root Sciences, LLC v. United States, CIT # 21-00123).