Jacob Kopnick

An alleged transshipper in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion investigation was allowed to intervene in a case at the Court of International Trade, per an Oct. 7 order. Kingtom Aluminio was originally denied the right to intervene for failing to show a legally protectable interest in the case. Judge Richard Eaton changed his tune in the most recent order, now agreeing that the company has a protectable interest.

The Commerce Department was wrong to include dual-stenciled pipe imported as line pipe within the scope of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, the Court of International Trade said in an Oct. 6 order, remanding the scope ruling to Commerce for further consideration. Seeing as there were no Thai manufacturers who even made line pipe at the time of the AD order, the ITC therefore never made an injury determination on line pipe from Thailand. This led Judge Stephen Vaden to hold that line pipes are excluded from the scope of the order.

Nippon Steel Corporation (NSC) challenges certain elements of the Commerce Department's third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan covering entries in 2018-19, in an Oct. 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade.

Lyke Industrial Tool's cupwheels are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from China, the Court of International Trade held in an Oct. 7 order. After conducting an analysis of the "(k)(2)" factors following an initial remand from CIT, which included comparing the physical characteristics, end uses, consumer expectations and methods of advertising for cupwheels and diamond sawblades, the Commerce Department held that the cupwheels could not be held in the scope of the AD order.

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

The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction over cases in which CBP seized goods, Judge Gary Katzmann ruled in an Oct. 7 order. Instead, jurisdiction in these instances lies exclusively with federal district courts, the judge said. Since the seizure of an import does not deem a product excluded, and thus precludes any protestable event, jurisdiction at CIT is barred for seized goods, the court found.

Hong Kong-based apparel company, Changji Esquel Textile (CJE), was denied a preliminary injunction against its placement on the Commerce Department's Entity List, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in an Oct. 6 order. Since CJE "cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to establish their entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief," the move for a PI was denied. CJE failed to show that Commerce acted ultra vires and in excess of its authority, Judge Reggie Walton said (Changji Esquel Textile Co. Ltd., et al. v. Gina M. Raimondo, et al., D.D.C. #21-01798).

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

In a complaint at the Court of International Trade, importer Kehoe Component Sales said its heating blanket controllers should be classified under subheading 9032.89.60, dutiable at 1.7%. CBP liquidated the entries under subheading 8537.10.9070, dutiable at 2.7%.

There isn't a need to grant an extension of time for the U.S. to respond to the American Apparel and Footwear Association's motion to file an amicus brief in a customs case since the Department of Justice hasn't given a reason why there should be an extension, the association said in an Oct. 6 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Also, AAFA argued, there's no reason the brief should not be accepted, and the defendant hasn't offered any reason it would be.