The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department improperly deducted Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from antidumping duty respondent Nippon Steel Corp.'s (NSC's) U.S. price, the exporter argued in a July 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Becoming the next company to make the claim, NSC argued that Section 232 duties are unlike the ordinary customs duties that are considered U.S. import duties and are in fact "far more similar" to antidumping duties, countervailing duties and safeguard duties, which are not deducted from U.S. price (Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00183).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate July 22 following its opinion ruling that the Commerce Department properly found that Shelter Forest International Acquisition's hardwood plywood exports didn't circumvent the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. In the June opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade's opinion, finding that the merchandise was commercially available before Dec. 8, 2016, and was thus not later-developed merchandise that circumvented the AD/CVD orders (see 2206150032) (Shelter Forest International Acquisition Inc., et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2281).

The Court of International Trade in a July 22 order consolidated three customs cases concerning the proper classification of electric scooters, known as hoverboards. Two of the cases, including the now-lead case, were brought by 3BTech, while the remaining action was brought by Pro-Com Products. The cases were launched to argue that the hoverboards were classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9503.00.0090, which provides for "Tricycles, scooters, pedal cars and similar wheeled toys; dollsʼ carriages; dolls, other toys; reduced-scale ('scale') models and similar recreational models, working or not; puzzles of all kinds; parts and accessories thereof: Other," and allows subject goods to enter duty-free (see 2112100053) (3BTech Inc. v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00026).

The Commerce Department was not justified in using adverse facts available in an antidumping duty review on respondent Xinjiang Meihua Amino Acid Co. since the respondent was fully cooperative and there was no gap in the record, consolidated plaintiff Jianlong Biotechnology Co. argued in a July 19 brief at the Court of International Trade. Further, there is not record evidence supporting the fact that the 77.04% dumping margin Commerce assigned to the non-individually examined companies "reflects in any way the dumping rate of the cooperative separate rate respondents," Jianlong Biotechnology argued (Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00069).

A recent Court of International Trade opinion finding that the U.S. cannot assert a counterclaim in customs classification litigation "is persuasive" in importer Second Nature Designs' case, the plaintiff argued in a July 20 notice of supplemental authority at the trade court. In Second Nature's case, the importer is seeking a different classification for its dried botanical entries. The U.S. has argued it can file counterclaims seeking its own preferred classification of the dried botanicals (see 2203230024). In the recent CIT opinion, Judge Claire Kelly held that the U.S. cannot make counterclaims in customs cases because there is no statutory authority to do so, redenominating the counterclaim as a defense (see 2207200052). Second Nature said in its notice that while the opinion is not binding, it's persuasive over the U.S.'s ability to assert a counterclaim (Second Nature Designs v. U.S., CIT #21-00271).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska should reconsider its ruling which found that the U.S. cannot pursue penalties for violations of the Jones Act from shipping companies Kloosterboer International Forwarding and Alaska Reefer Management, the U.S. argued in a July 14 brief. The court "without explanation" reached an opposite conclusion over whether CBP modified treatment of a Canadian rail line, thus requiring a notice-and-comment period. The U.S. argues that this switch was "erroneous," and that the court should revisit its ruling (Kloosterboer International Forwarding v. United States, D. Alaska #3:21-00198)

The Court of International Trade should deny a motion by the Government that would force importer Second Nature to file a complaint in a case concerning the proper classification of imported botanical products, according to a July 20 motion by Second Nature (Second Nature Designs Ltd. v. United States, CIT #17-00131).

The Commerce Department's refusal to reopen the record after an antidumping review was complete to correct ministerial errors "was a reasonable exercise of its discretion to preserve the finality of its decision," AD petitioner GEO Specialty Chemicals argued in a July 21 brief at the Court of International Trade. GEO said that Commerce's discretion to not amend the final results is "broad," and that the error was not discovered until "well after" the five-day window after the release of the final calculations to file ministerial errors (Nagase & Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).

The Commerce Department's own precedent means it should have relied on the U.S. dollar price of home market sales in an antidumping duty case instead of foreign currentcy amounts to avoid large exchange rate fluctuations, plaintiff Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi argued in a July 18 reply brief. Filing its arguments at the Court of International Trade, Habas said that the "evidentiary record" shows Commerce should not have valued Habas's sales using the Turkish lira (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. United States, CIT #21-00527).