CBP failed to apply a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion on G&H Diversified Manufacturing's steel tube entry, the importer argued in a Nov. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade. G&H said CBP had said on at least three separate occasions that the classification of the imports was correct and that the classification was excluded from having to pay the national security duties as determined by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (G&H Diversified Manufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 22-00130).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade properly said that importer Nature's Touch Frozen Foods frozen fruit mixture entries are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0811.90.80 as "Fruit ... frozen," the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Nov. 21 reply brief. The trade court "committed no legal error in interpreting" the terms "fruit," "other" and "food preparations" since the terms are defined by "dictionaries, Explanatory Notes, and legal standards" set by the Federal Circuit and other courts, the government said (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2093).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit "unequivocally held" that the Commerce Department could deduct Section 232 national security duties from U.S. price in antidumping duty cases, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 17 supplemental brief at the Court of International Trade.

The Commerce Department rejected arguments from antidumping duty petitioners, led by Ellwood City Forge Co., regarding "alternative pathways" for the agency to make a particular market situation adjustment for two inputs of forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on Nov. 21, Commerce said that while it reversed course on its ability to make a cost-based PMS adjustment, it won't be able to make a sales-based PMS adjustment since it was untimely filed (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00077).

The U.S. Supreme Court will hold oral argument Jan. 17 in a pivotal case on the Chevron deference principle. Under Chevron, agencies' interpretation of statutes are approved with minimal oversight should the statute prove ambiguous. U.S. trade agencies often champion the doctrine in their enforcement of antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings. The Supreme Court granted writ of certiorari in November 2022 to hear a case on Chevron from a group of commercial fishing companies. Justice Neil Gorsuch criticized Chevron deference in a November 2022 dissenting opinion (see 2211080058) (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Gina Raimondo, Sup. Ct. # 22-451).

American tool maker Stanley Black & Decker moved to toss its case challenging President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the move in a separate case from PrimeSource Building Products. Stanley Black & Decker said it's "no longer necessary for" the Court of International Trade to render a decision in the case, which has been stayed pending resolution of PrimeSource's case. The tool maker moved to toss the case despite a second petition at the Supreme Court from exporter Oman Fasteners (see 2311010052). The trade court granted the motion to dismiss the same day (Stanley Black & Decker v. U.S., CIT # 21-00262).

Importer PrimeSource Building Products told the Supreme Court on Nov. 20 that it's preserving its right to qualify for any relief the court may grant exporter Oman Fasteners in the company's case against President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products. PrimeSource sent the letter to the court after its petition for certiorari was denied by the high court on Oct. 30 (see 2310300020). Despite this decision from the Supreme Court, Oman Fasteners pressed on in its bid for the court to take up its case in a separate action challenging the expansion of the duties (see 2311010052). Oman Fasteners argued against the "extreme deference doctrine" exhibited by the appellate court that "contradicts the statutory text and does violence to the separation of powers" (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Sup. Ct. # 23-432).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential Nov. 21 opinion remanded parts and sustained parts of the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on biodiesel from Indonesia. In a letter to litigants, Judge Richard Eaton gave the parties until Nov. 30 to review the confidential information in the opinion, stating it's the court's intention to release a public version of the opinion "in the near future." In a previous opinion in the case, the court remanded Commerce's reliance on constructed value for sales not made through Indonesia's Public Service Obligation,saying it needed to be further explained (see 2207050064). The court also told Commerce to further explain its legal authority to make a CV adjustment to account for Renewable Identification Numbers (Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 18-00121).

The U.S. added two attorneys to its litigation team in the massive Section 301 case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Filing an amended notice of appearance on Nov. 20, the government tacked on Melissa Patterson and Joshua Koppel -- two attorneys in DOJ's Civil Appellate Division -- to the appellee team for the U.S. (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).