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

Proceedings in a Court of International Trade case involving a first sale valuation for imports from a non-market economy will continue as planned and won't await a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on a related case, Judge Mark Barnett said in a June 3 order denying a stay sought by apparel importer Imperia Trading. It argued that proceedings should be halted since the Department of Justice “relies heavily” on a March 1 CIT decision involving the first sale treatment of cookware imported by Meyer (see 2103020040). Barnett sided with DOJ, saying that "the court is not persuaded that the outcome of the appeal in Meyer Corp. ... will necessarily be determinative in this case." Imperia now faces a June 4 deadline to submit a motion for summary judgment barring an extension (Imperia Trading, Inc. v. United States, CIT #15-00142).

CBP made an admissibility determination for an imported machine "designed for the recovery of cannabis crude extract from cannabis biomass," thus barring an order from the Court of International Trade to show cause against an expedited litigation track, the Department of Justice said in a June 3 reply brief. In a case brought by Root Sciences, the court was asked to consider whether CBP's decision to stop the import of the "hopper feed vessel" is a deemed exclusion or seizure. DOJ says it's the latter, thereby removing jurisdiction from CIT and moving it to the district court in which the seizure took place. Root Sciences said it was deemed excluded, giving CIT jurisdiction and reason to order DOJ to show cause why the deemed exclusion can't be lifted and an expedited litigation track can't be adopted (Root Sciences, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00123).

The Commerce Department properly adhered to remand instructions from the Court of International Trade by relying on data from Xeneta XS over Maersk Line when calculating a company's surrogate ocean freight expenses in an antidumping administrative review on solar cells, both the Department of Justice and plaintiffs in the case agreed in two filings of comments on the remand results. The change in surrogate data selection led to a dumping margin of 5.08% for mandatory respondent Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. and the separate rate respondents, many of whom are also plaintiffs in the case (Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #18-00176).

The Court of International Trade on June 2 stayed a case challenging an Enforce and Protect Act determination of antidumping duty evasion pending the resolution of a related case on the scope of the underlying AD order. Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden ordered that within 14 days of the resolution of the AD scope case, the Department of Justice and plaintiff Thai pipe exporter Blue Pipe Steel Center Co. will file a status report and proposed briefing schedule. The related case on the scope ruling concerns whether dual stenciled pipe is covered under the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. In the motion to stay proceedings, Blue Pipe argued that if the scope ruling were deemed to be unlawful, “CBP’s determination of Blue Pipe’s evasion should also be deemed unlawful” (Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00081).

Guardian Insurance Company was found not to be liable for the losses of a food importer totaling over $500,000 that expired due to COVID-19 lockdowns, according to a May 24 opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Since the stay-at-home orders that allegedly led to the seafood imports rotting exempted the food industry, Guardian was able to avoid liability for the food losses.

Thai pipe exporter Blue Pipe Steel Center Co. filed an unopposed motion to stay proceedings on June 1 in its Enforce and Protect Act challenge until a decision is received from a related case involving a scope ruling on the underlying antidumping duty order in the Court of International Trade. Blue Pipe is hoping to reverse the affirmative determination that its dual stenciled pipe evaded antidumping duties on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Since a related lawsuit from Saha Thai is challenging a scope ruling that found that dual-stenciled pipe was covered by the AD duty order, Blue Pipe's case should wait until the scope matter is settled, the company said.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results that, unprompted by court order, raised the antidumping rate for Indian steel exporter Venus Wire Industries, in a June 2 opinion. Though Judge Mark Barnett had in November only ordered Commerce to further explain its use of partial AFA in the underlying review, Commerce also changed its calculations to raise the AD rate on Venus for its stainless steel bar exports from India from 5.35% to 24.6%.

The Court of International Trade in a June 2 opinion remanded an antidumping administrative review on multilayered wood flooring from China to the Commerce Department after a related ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the mandatory respondents to not be subject to the AD order. In the remand, Commerce is to determine a new rate for the separate rate respondents now that the existing 0.79% dumping margin for the mandatory respondents' rate no longer applies.

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