Porsche Motorsports North America failed to show that its exported, then reimported, trailer with auto parts and tools qualifies for a particular Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading that would have allowed it duty-free treatment, the Department of Justice said in a July 9 reply brief. Since Porsche acknowledged that certain articles it brought in from Canada had not originally been exported from the U.S. to Canada, the shipment fails to meet the standard for Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. subheading 9801.00.85, DOJ argued (Porsche Motorsports North America, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 16-00182).

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

The Commerce Department must further explain its use of a statistical test when using its differential pricing analysis in an antidumping duty investigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a July 15 opinion. Partially remanding an antidumping investigation into welded line pipe from South Korea, the Federal Circuit questioned Commerce's use of the "Cohen's d test" to discover targeted or masked dumping.

The Commerce Department wants a partial remand of its final determination in a countervailing duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Indonesia, to reconsider whether it erroneously identified an upstream subsidy in the case as an export subsidy. In a July 9 motion for partial remand in the Court of International Trade, the government defense said that it wants the chance to review this determination to see if an error was committed and to potentially recalculate the resulting countervailing duty rate for the plaintiff in the case, PT. Kenertec Power System, which received the all-other respondents rate in the investigation (PT. Kenertec Power System v. United States, CIT #20-03687).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Court of International Trade ruling dismissing an importer's challenge of CBP's assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties, for improper jurisdiction, in a July 14 opinion. The Federal Circuit found that TR International Trading Company, which filed its case under the trade court's Section 1581(i) "residual" jurisdiction provision, could have instead challenged a denied protest under 1581(a) or a scope ruling under 1581(c), rendering Section 1581(i) unavailable.

The Court of International Trade stayed proceedings in a case brought by Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, challenging the denial of its request for an exclusion from Section 232 duties, in a July 12 order. In the joint motion requesting the stay, counsel for Allegheny said that the government defense reported to the plaintiffs that it was "engaged in internal discussions concerning disposition of this case." The government plans to wrap up the discussions and discuss the results with the plaintiffs in the following week, and said that any resulting status report or motion would be filed "as soon as practicable." Proceedings in the case are stayed until July 21 (Allegheny Technologies Incorporated et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-03923).

Importer Amoena USA Corp. wants the Court of International Trade to find that its mastectomy brassieres of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6212.10.90, dutiable at 16.9%, should properly be classified as the duty-free subheading of 9021.39.0000, according to a July 14 complaint. The former subheading covers "other brassieres of manmade fiber," while the importer's preferred subheading covers "Orthopedic appliances artificial parts of the body; parts and accessories thereof: Other artificial parts of the body and parts and accessories thereof: Other." Mastectomy brassieres are an accessory for artificial breasts for women who have had mastectomies. The brassieres are used to hold the artificial breast in position and are predominantly sold in medical settings, the complaint said. Since they are "principally used as accessories of artificial breast forms" they should be classified in Chapter 90 of the HTS, Amoena said (Amoena USA Corp. v. United States, CIT #20-00100).

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

The Department of Justice's argument that the president should be granted deference to determine whether the procedural boxes have been ticked when eliminating a tariff exemption would eliminate a key check on executive power, counsel for the Solar Energy Industries Association said during July 13 oral argument. The proceedings before Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann come amid SEIA's challenge to President Donald Trump's revocation of an exemption to Section 201 safeguard tariffs on bifacial solar panels (Solar Energy Industries Association et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03941).

The Court of International Trade on July 12 upheld the Commerce Department's pick of Romania over Malaysia as a surrogate country in an antidumping case, but sent back to the agency the resulting financial ratio calculation of a Romanian company. Since Commerce failed to address the concerns of mandatory respondent Ancientree Cabinets, Judge Gary Katzmann directed Commerce to reconsider Ancientree's objections. Other aspects of the investigation under contention, namely the selection of Romania over Malaysia and Commerce's picks for product input surrogate values, were upheld by Katzmann.