The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found a lawyer's appearance entry submission to not be in compliance with court rules. The court said that the entry for Willis Martyn, counsel for the U.S. in a case over the president's decision to revoke a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels, was not in compliance since he had not registered for an electronic filer account with the court's filing system. Martyn's contact information on the entry form also didn't match the information associated with his account (Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1392). In November 2021, the Court of International Trade struck down the tariff exclusion revocation, holding that the law permits only trade liberalizing alterations to the existing safeguard measures (see 2111160032).

Following oral argument over a question of whether a questionnaire submitted in lieu of verification constitutes verification in an antidumping matter, both the plaintiffs, led by Ellwod City Forge Co., and the defendant-intervenors, led by Metalcam, submitted follow-up briefs. Metalcam told the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department acted within its discretion to issue the questionnaire instead of on-site verification. Meanwhile, Ellwood responded to the oral argument by arguing that it exhausted administrative remedies on this question, but that even if it did not, this should not bar consideration of the legal claims (Ellwood City Forge Company v. United States, CIT #21-00073).

Second Nature Designs accused the Justice Department of using delaying tactics in a tariff classification case involving dried botanicals imported in 2018. In a Feb. 18 filing, Second Nature alleged that DOJ waited nearly four years to file a motion for supplemental pleading in violation of the court's deadline. According to Second Nature, DOJ filed its answer to the case in April 2018 and then waited almost four years even though the required information was in DOJ's possession since it deposed Second Nature's president in Nov. 2018. Second Nature argued that the delay is "inexcusably untimely" and creates a "highly prejudicial counterclaim." The government can't substitute a new decision in litigation for the official liquidation decision of CBP, nor to demand increased or additional duties from the protestant, once the 90-day reliquidation period has passed, the company said.

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

The Commerce Department's decision to deny a scope ruling request is not a judicially reviewable action, the Department of Justice said in its motion to dismiss a case brought by three companies at the Court of International Trade. CIT jurisdiction will instead be established at the end of a changed circumstances review requested by the plaintiffs, DOJ said (Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00502).

Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) and Riverside Plywood, two plaintiffs in a countervailing duty case, submitted a notice of supplemental authority saying the Commerce Department has shown it can verify non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP) even without information from the Chinese government. Because Commerce has done so in a different CVD investigation following the submission of standard supplemental questionnaire responses, verification is possible in the current case, the plaintiffs told the Court of International Trade (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT #20-03885).

Section 232 national security duties are not "ordinary customs duties" and shouldn't be deducted from an antidumping duty respondent's export price and constructed export price, exporter Borusan Mannesmann said in a Feb. 25 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Instead, Section 232 duties should be found to be "special duties" because they were imposed by a specific congressional delegation of authority to the president, the brief said (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #22-00057).

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

The Commerce Department didn't "consider the plain language of the scope" when it found a type of aluminum sheet imported from Turkey by AA Metals to be covered by the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China, the importer said in a Feb. 22 complaint challenging a scope ruling issued by Commerce in response to a CBP covered merchandise referral in an AD/CVD evasion investigation (AA Metals v. United States, CIT #22-00051).

The government's right to collect on a bond against a surety doesn't accrue until the surety breaches the bond, the Department of Justice said in a Feb. 28 motion for judgment in a case seeking to collect on a bond that covers imports entered during 2002-2006. Since the terms of the bond say that the surety must pay "as demanded by CBP," the statute of limitations on which to file suit to collect payment runs from when CBP demands payment, the brief said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).