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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit allowed the American Steel Nail Coalition to appear as amicus curiae in a dispute over whether the president properly expanded the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs onto "derivative" products made beyond procedural deadlines. In the brief, the coalition urged the Federal Circuit to uphold this extension since it had a positive impact on the U.S. industry and the issue was already decided in the key case Transpacific Steel v. U.S. (see 2201100059). In Transpacific, the Federal Circuit greenlighted presidential action taken beyond procedural time limits so long as it is part of the original plan of action laid out in the Commerce Secretary's report preceding the Section 232 tariffs (see 2107130059) (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2066).

Plaintiffs who challenged CBP's liquidation of their entries subject to a pending Enforce and Protect Act investigation are considering a challenge to the Commerce Department's final decision in a related scope ruling, they said in a Jan. 31 status report at the Court of International Trade. The scope inquiry found Vietnam Finewood and Far East American's hardwood plywood products are subject to the antidumping and countervailing duties on hardwood plywood from China (see 2201280051). Subsequently, and after the entries liquidated, CBP said that FEA and a third plaintiff, InterGlobal Forest, evaded the orders. The two now have 30 days to request a review of the EAPA determination. The government, joining the plaintiffs on the status report, says a resolution of this review is expected in June, and so the next status report should be set for a time after this review. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, said that the next status report should come in the next 30 days "after Finewood and FEA have fully considered their appeal against Commerce’s scope determination," the status reports said (Vietnam Finewood Company Limited v. United States, CIT #20-00155).

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

The Commerce Department reasonably found that antidumping respondents Aelous Tyre and Guizhou Tyre Co. were de facto controlled by the Chinese government, the Department of Justice said in a Jan. 24 reply brief submitted at the Court of International Trade. Aeolus and GTC argued that in cases where the Chinese government is found to only own a minority of a company, Commerce cannot just rely on only one fact of the de facto control analysis. DOJ countered by saying that the plaintiffs mischaracterize Commerce' separate rate evaluations and that all factors were considered in establishing that the pair failed to rebut the presumption of government control (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #17-00100).

Proposed defendant-intervenor U.S. Steel Corporation will appeal a December 2021 Court of International Trade decision that denied the company the right to intervene in a Section 232 exclusion denial challenge. U.S. Steel will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to the Feb. 1 notice of appeal. In the decision, the trade court said that U.S. Steel cannot intervene since it won't be directly affected by the case's outcome and that any harm the company would experience as a result of a Section 232 exclusion being granted would be indirect since the company has no right to the sale of the covered products (see 2112060021) (NLMK Pennsylvania LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00507).

An auto parts importer said the Department of Justice is overcomplicating and misstating the use of its diesel engine nitrogen oxide (NOx) sensors in defense of CBP's classification of the sensors as instruments for chemical analysis under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9027. In a brief filed Jan. 31, Continental Automotive Systems says the NOx sensors, used to measure the amount of nitrogen oxide for emissions purposes, are instead provided for in heading 9026 as measurement devices (Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #18-00026).

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

Porsche Motorsports North America will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a Dec. 30 Court of International Trade opinion that held that the company's auto parts and tools exported to Canada for use at auto races then re-imported don't qualify for duty-free treatment, it said in a Jan. 31 notice of appeal. Porsche sought duty-free treatment for its goods brought back into the U.S. under a goods returned tariff provision for "tools of the trade." While Porsche said that its goods were exported to support race teams, the trade court said that the auto parts were exported to generate sales to race teams rather than for a professional purpose, as required by the Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9801.00.8500 (see 2201030038) (Porsche Motorsports North America v. U.S., CIT #16-00182).

Antidumping duty respondent Goodluck India Limited filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's assessment of antidumping duties on its entries since they were not subject to the ADD order at the time, the company said. Goodluck participated in the antidumping duty investigation into cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from India in which it was assigned a 33.7% cash deposit rate. The respondent then challenged this decision at CIT, which eventually overturned Commerce, affirming a final zero percent margin for Goodluck. The result was Commerce revoking the ADD order for Goodluck (Goodluck India Limited v. United States, CIT #22-00024).