Jacob Kopnick

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a mandate Sept. 7 in a case in which it dismissed the proceedings due to a lack of jurisdiction. In its July 14 opinion, the Federal Circuit said that the Court of International Trade was correct in dismissing an importer's challenge of CBP's assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties (see 2107140028). The plaintiff, TR International Trading Co., erred when it filed its case under the trade court's Section 1581(i) "residual" jurisdiction, since it could have challenged a denied protest under Section 1581(a) or a scope ruling under Section 1581(c), rendering Section 1581(i) unavailable, the appellate court said. In particular, TRI challenged CBP's finding that the company's citric acid imports from India were of Chinese origin and subject to AD/CV duties (TR International Trading Company, Inc. v. United States, CIT #19-00022). CAFC ordered TRI to pay court costs totaling $28.32 to the U.S. government.

Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps' Court of International Trade case challenging CBP's antidumping and countervailing duty evasion finding should continue, even though the relevant entries have liquidated, because the lawsuit was properly filed under Section 1581(c), the company said in a Sept. 1 reply brief. Responding to a partial motion to dismiss from the Department of Justice, Dr. Bronner's said that since the Enforce and Protect Act, under which the evasion finding was made, is codified under 19 USC 1517, the proper jurisdiction for its challenge of an EAPA investigation is Section 1581(c) (All One God Faith, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00164).

The Commerce Department's proposed schedule to review Section 232 exclusion requests on remand is "necessary in light of Commerce's current limited resources," the agency said in a Sept. 9 brief. Replying to the plaintiffs' opposition to Commerce's voluntary remand motion at the Court of International Trade, the agency also urged the court to simply defer to the proposed schedule due to Commerce's limited resources and the non-prejudicial nature of the schedule to the lawsuit's parties. Many of the consolidated plaintiffs opposed the schedule, arguing that it was "unreasonable" with a "nonsensical" rationale (see 2108170072).

Two Alaskan shipping companies, Kloosterboer International Forwarding and Alaska Reefer Management, filed for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order against CBP penalties for seafood shipments in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. CBP recently continued to issue the penalty notices for companies shipping Alaskan seafood from Alaska to the eastern U.S. via the Bayside, New Brunswick, Canada, port, alleging Jones Act violations. The two companies challenged these penalties in the district court, declaring that they have essentially shut down this critical shipping route that had been previously cleared by CBP as complying with the Jones Act.

No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

If the Commerce Department is to deduct Section 232 national security tariffs from exporter Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi's U.S. price in an antidumping duty rate calculation, it should do it at the original 25% rate and not the increased 50% margin subsequently announced by President Donald Trump and later invalidated by the Court of International Trade, the plaintiff said in a Sept. 3 CIT brief at the Court of International Trade (Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S. v. United States, CIT #21-00140).

Furniture importer Aspects Furniture International has a protectable interest in an antidumping duty evasion case at the very least due to "goodwill, reputation, and freedom to take advantage of business opportunities" concerns, the importer said in an Aug. 30 filing in the Court of International Trade. Responding to the Department of Justice's arguments countering its initial motion for judgment, AFI also said that, contrary to the government's position, CBP's limited administrative avenues to submit written arguments during the investigation were insufficient from a constitutional perspective to reject AFI's due process violation claims (Aspects Furniture International, Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-03824).

The Court of International Trade remanded parts and sustained parts of the Commerce Department's final results in the fifth administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystaline silicon photovoltaic cells from China, in a Sept. 3 order. Judge Jane Restani sustained Commerce's specificity finding for the aluminum extrusions for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) program, the agency's chosen benchmark for the land value for the LTAR program, and plaintiff and mandatory respondent Canadian Solar's lack of creditworthiness in 2016. Conversely, the judge remanded Commerce's entered value adjustment finding for Canadian Solar and its determination that the respondents benefited from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program.

A lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina over a shipping company's alleged gross negligence in handling a hemp shipment should be tossed for lack of jurisdiction, defendant Planet Nine Private Air said in a Sept. 1 brief. If the court decides not to dismiss the matter, it should be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, since that is where Planet Nine primarily does business and the signing of the contract in dispute was held there, the brief said (We CBD, LLC et al. v. Plante Nine Private Air, LLC, W.D.N.C. #21-00352).