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

Borusan Mannesmann and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline, plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking to apply Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions to their 19 entries, filed a notice of supplemental authority citing CBP rulings on classification of steel goods under Section 232 and Presidential Proclamation 9705 on the Section 232 tariffs to further support their arguments. The Department of Justice has moved to dismiss the case since the entries are unliquidated, precluding the Court of International Trade from having judicial review over the entries and the resulting tariff exclusion claims (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #21-00186).

The Court of International Trade granted the Commerce Department's voluntary bid to reconsider its decision to countervail the reduction for sewerage fees program in South Korea due to its "new understanding of Korean law," the trade court said in a Jan. 11 order. Commerce requested the do-over in a remand motion in which the plaintiff, Hyundai Steel, consented to the voluntary bid while the defendant-intervenor, Nucor Tubular, took no position on the matter (Hyundai Steel Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00304).

CBP failed to require that a company accused of evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties provide adequate public summaries of its confidential information, and the agency also failed to properly review the administrative record, the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee (AHSTEC) told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 10 reply to briefs submitted by the Justice Department and defendant-intervenors MSeafood Corp. and Minh Phu Seafood (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee v. United States, CIT #21-00129).

Japanese manufacturer Sigma Corporation will appeal a U.S. District Court for the Central District of California decision finding Sigma, along with other companies, guilty of False Claims Act violations related to not paying antidumping duties, Sigma told the district court in a Jan. 7 notice. The appeal will go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Sigma is notifying the district court of its appeal despite the fact that the district court has not entered final judgment because the defendant wants to "preserve all appellate rights" (United States v. Vandewater International, C.D. Cal. #17-04393). In 2017, Island Industries accused Sigma and others of failing to pay antidumping duties on welded outlet imports from China while also alleging that they submitted false information to the U.S. relating to the applicability and amount of duties owed. Many of the other defendants, including Smith Cooper International Inc. and Allied Rubber and Gasket Co., were dismissed from the action (see 2103310033).

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

The Court of International Trade granted CBP's voluntary motion for a remand in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation over magnesia alumina carbon bricks, in which Fedmet Resources was found to have skirted the order on magnesia carbon bricks from China. CBP requested the voluntary remand, with the consent of Fedmet, to go over key issues raised by the plaintiff, including scope-related and due process arguments (see 2201060035). CBP said it would review the administrative record and potentially provide public versions of certain confidential documents discussed in Fedmet's briefs, possibly alleviating one of the plaintiff's due process concerns by also giving it a chance to provide rebuttal information (Fedmet Resources Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00248).

No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should uphold the Commerce Department's finding that Shelter Forest International Acquisition's hardwood plywood exports didn't circumvent the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China, Shelter Forest and others said in a response brief. Shelter Forest argued that the appellate court should uphold the Court of International Trade's ruling that Shelter Forest's plywood wasn't later-developed merchandise and the company wasn't guilty of evasion (Shelter Forest International Acquisition Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2281).

The Commerce Department was wrong to allow an antidumping duty respondent's net hedging-related gains to offset its cost of manufacturing in an AD investigation, the Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group told the Court of International Trade in its Jan. 7 complaint. Commerce's finding that the respondent's hedging gains are "associated" with its purchases of aluminum is insufficient because the record also shows that the hedging contracts are associated with its sales of finished goods, the complaint said (The Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group, et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00618).