A recently concluded case at the Court of International Trade was a serious contest between the power of the court and the finality of liquidation, customs lawyer Larry Friedman of Barnes Richardson said in an Aug. 2 blog post. The case at issue was Target v. U.S., in which Target attempted to reverse a reliquidation order on improperly liquidated ironing tables from China (see 2108160028). Reversing the order would "elevate the principle of finality" of liquidation over the power of the trade court, Judge Leo Gordon said in his July opinion (see 2307200049).

Importer Eteng Technologies Aug. 2 moved to dismiss its customs suit at the Court of International Trade related to its shipments of backpacking tents. The company challenged CBP's classification of the tents under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6302.22.90, dutiable at 8.8%, claiming that they should be classified under subheading 6306.22.10, free of duty. John Peterson, counsel for Eteng, said in an email that he realized the duties were not paid before the case was filed, which would have led the suit being tossed for lack of jurisdiction (Eteng Technologies v. United States, CIT # 22-00167).

The Commerce Department unlawfully relied on the Cohen's d test and incorrectly applied partial adverse facts to Indian exporter Garg Tube on remand in an antidumping duty case on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India, Garg said in a July 31 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT # 21-00169).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit officially issued its order vacating and remanding the Court of International Trade's opinion upholding CBP's evasion finding for importer Royal Brush Manufacturing. The Aug. 1 order came a few days after the court's consequential opinion, which said CBP violated Royal Brush's due process rights by not giving it access to confidential information in the Enforce and Protect Act investigation into the company (see 2307270038). The order remands the antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case so the agency can make the whole record available to the importer (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1226).

The U.S. will appeal a June Court of International Trade opinion upholding the Commerce Department's remand results in a suit on the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. The remand results dropped the presumption the Chinese government controlled exporter Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. after the trade court questioned whether Commerce could disregard a mandatory respondent's own data in favor of the countrywide nonmarket economy rate (see 2305040061).

The Maritime Administration illegally approved the Sea Port Oil Terminal (SPOT), which would be the largest offshore oil export terminal in the U.S., by not conducting analysis on "critical environmental harms and Congressional licensing requirements," conservation groups led by Citizens for Clean Air & Clean Water argued in a reply brief. Responding to arguments made by the Department of Transportation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the conservation groups said the agency's request for deference in the case evades its "legal failings" (Citizens for Clean Air & Clean Water in Brazoria County v. U.S. Department of Transportation, 5th Cir. # 23-60027).

Investors in Mississippi's public employees' retirement system sued Seagate Technology Holdings for deceiving its investors and causing them to buy Seagate stock at "artificially inflated prices" related to its conduct in illegally exporting hard disk drives to China. (Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Seagate Technology Holdings, N.D. Cal. # 3:23-03711).

Three plaintiffs in an Enforce and Protect Act case at the Court of International Trade cited the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing Co. v. U.S. as being "directly relevant" to their own lawsuit. In Royal Brush, the Federal Circuit said CBP violated importer Royal Brush's due process rights by refusing to provide it access to the business confidential information in the EAPA proceeding (see 2307270038). In their case against CBP's finding of evasion of the AD/CVD orders on glycine from China, plaintiffs Newtrend USA Co., Starille and Nutrawave Co. said the Royal Brush decision relates to their first count, which also says CBP violated their due process rights. The companies said they are prepared to submit briefs on the significance of the opinion ahead of the deadline for the U.S. and the petitioner to submit their reply briefs (Newtrend USA Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00347).

The U.S. asked for more time to file its reply to importer PrimeSource's writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court in its case challenging President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products. The government asked for another month, until Sept. 25, to complete its brief, explaining its response was delayed due to the "heavy press of earlier assigned cases to the attorneys handling this matter." The brief is due Aug. 24.

The International Trade Commission's decision not to cumulate imports of cold-rolled steel from Brazil with those of China, India, Japan and the U.K. in sunset reviews "conflicts" with Court of International Trade precedent, U.S. steel company Cleveland-Cliffs said in a July 31 reply brief. The company also said the commission didn't follow precedent when it decided not to cumulate imports from Brazil with those from South Korea (Cleveland-Cliffs v. U.S., CIT # 22-00257).