The Commerce Department has the statutory authority to carry out expedited reviews in countervailing duty investigations, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 7 amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The U.S was invited to file the amicus brief by the Federal Circuit after it failed to appear regularly in the case. Taking the court up on its offer, the government claimed that the Commerce Department had preexisting authority for the regulation under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, though even if this preexisting structure did not exist, the URAA itself along with the Statement of Administrative Action's statements provide authority for expedited CVD reviews (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1021).

President Donald Trump legally expanded the Section 232 national security tariffs to include steel and aluminum "derivative" products despite implementing the expansion beyond procedural deadlines laid out in the statute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a Feb. 7 opinion. Relying on the appellate court's opinion in Transpacific Steel v. U.S., in which the court said that the president can adjust the tariffs beyond these time limits if it relates to the original plan of action laid out in the initial Section 232 tariff action, the Federal Circuit said that the expansion of the tariffs was related to the original plan.

The Court of International Trade held oral arguments on Feb. 7 in the massive litigation over the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs. During the nearly two-hour affair, Judges Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves probed the parties' positions on whether the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative complied with the Administrative Procedure Act by properly considering comments made on the proposed tariffs when imposing the duties on $500 billion of Chinese goods (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).

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.

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 6 order denied defendant-intervenor Endura Products' motion for a stay of proceedings in an Enforce and Protect Act case brought by Columbia Aluminum Products, pending the resolution of a scope proceeding at the trade court. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that the stay motion failed to show that it would serve the twin objectives of "fairness to the litigants and judicial economy."

A protest of a CBP decision must be filed within 180 days of liquidation and not the date the Commerce Department issues antidumping and countervailing duty instructions to CBP or the date CBP denies an importer's refund request, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in a Feb. 6 opinion. Upholding a Court of International Trade decision, judges Timothy Dyk, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes dismissed a case from importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, that challenges a CBP assessment of countervailing duties, on the grounds that the company failed to file a protest.

CBP adhered to the Court of International Trade's order by complying with the requirement to provide public summaries of confidential information in an Enforce and Protect Act case and reviewing the entire record transmitted from one offce of CBP to another, the government argued in a Feb. 2 reply brief. Responding to arguments from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee over the use of public summaries to protect certain confidential information, the U.S. said that neither the EAPA statute, CBP's regulations nor the court's remand order permits or requires CBP to make "substantive" confidential information public (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee v. United States, CIT # 21-00129).

Imported net wraps used to secure crops in a round bale should be classified as parts of agricultural machines rather than as "warp knit fabric," importer RKW Klerks argued in its Feb. 2 opening brief at U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal asks the court to reverse the judgment of the Court of International Trade and hold that imported netwrap is properly classified either as parts of hay balers under subheading 8433.90.50 or as parts of agricultural machinery under subheading 8439.90.00, both duty-free. In the further alternative, RKW asked the court to remand the case to CIT for further proceedings (RKW Klerks v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1210).

The U.S. and the Wind Tower Trade Coalition failed to show that the Commerce Department's findings in a countervailing duty case on wind towers from Canada were supported by substantial evidence, plaintiff-appellants Quebec and Canada and respondent Marmen Energie argued in a Feb. 1 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Quebec v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1807).

Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari in a Feb. 2 brief at the Court of International Trade railed against U.S. Steel's bid to intervene in a case challenging the International Trade Commission's decision not to review an antidumping injury proceeding. The exporter said that U.S. Steel Corp. filed for intervention under the wrong legal standard since the case was established under Section 1581(i), the trade court's "residual" jurisdiction, and not Section 1581(c). Even if this point were irrelevant, Erdemir said the court should still prevent U.S. Steel (USSC) from intervening in the case since it was not a proper party to the underlying proceeding (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. United States, CIT # 22-00349).