The Court of International Trade on April 29 sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in a countervailing duty administrative review on corrosion-resistant steel products from India. Upholding the agency's application of adverse facts available to Indian steel producer Uttam Galva Steels in Commerce's 2016 review, Judge Leo Gordon found that Commerce adequately explained its decision to apply full AFA to Uttam Galva and not to the other mandatory respondent in the case, JSW, because Uttam Galva failed to provide information about its affiliation with Lloyds Steel Industry Ltd. (LSIL).

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

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

Following a court-ordered remand to address due process concerns in an Enforce and Protect Act case, CBP has failed again to provide Royal Brush Manufacturing “notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard,” the importer argued in an April 26 response to CBP's remand redetermination. Despite some changes to comply with the Court of International Trade decision that found fault with CBP's finding that Royal Brush evaded antidumping duties on cased pencils from China by way of transshipment through the Philippines, Royal Brush continued to take issue with CBP's public summaries of key case information and the agency's failure to properly notify the company when new factual information surfaced via a verification report.

3D-printed guns can now be removed from the State Department-regulated U.S. Munitions List following an April 27 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Penned by judges Jay Bybee and Ryan Nelson, the decision lifts an injunction on regulations issued by President Donald Trump in 2018 to transfer “ghost gun” blueprints from the USML to the less-restrictive Commerce Control List.

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

An importer’s tariff classification challenge on machinery used in the recycling industry has been designated a test case, according to an order issued by the Court of International Trade April 28 (Vecoplan, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 20-00126). Filed by Vecoplan, the lawsuit challenges CBP’s classification of industrial size-reduction machinery, said the underlying consent motion to designate it as such. CBP had classified the merchandise under subheading 8479.89.9499 (other machine having an individual function, dutiable at 2.5%), while Vecoplan argues for classification under subheading 8479.82.0080 (crushing, grinding, screening, sifting, etc. machines, duty-free). Two other cases filed by Vecoplan seek the same result, and the importer has moved to suspend them under the new test case.

Aluminum extrusion importer Global Aluminum Distributor filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Enforce and Protect A investigations, becoming the latest to challenge the process for countering antidumping duty evasion. In an April 28 complaint, Global Aluminum said CBP's EAPA process violated procedural requirements and the importer's constitutional rights related to due process and excessive fines, and that CBP is unfairly subjecting a company to two EAPA investigations for the same conduct and entries. Separate from other EAPA complaints, Global Aluminum claims that the duties assessed via the evasion finding constitutes a violation of the Eight Amendment for excessive fines.

Porsche Motorsports North America filed a motion for summary judgment in the Court of International Trade, hoping to sway the court that automobile repair tools and parts the company exported to Canada then brought back into the U.S. should return duty free. In the April 26 filing, Porsche argued for classification under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9801.00.85 -- the subheading granting duty-free access to goods returning to the states after having been exported for use temporarily abroad -- claiming the parts are “tools of the trade” of car racing.

The Commerce Department’s failure to verify data submitted by an Indian exporter of forged steel fittings during an antidumping duty investigation conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic means the agency should be ordered to go back and reexamine the exporter’s zero rate, the petitioners from that investigation said in a brief filed April 26 seeking a Court of International Trade remand (Bonney Forge Corporation et al v. U.S., CIT # 20-03837).