Jacob Kopnick

Among the recent plethora of lawsuits filed in the Court of International Trade challenging the constitutionality of the Enforce and Protect Act process for investigating evasion of antindumping and countervailing duty orders (see 2106070011), at least one invokes the Eighth Amendment, a rarely litigated part of the U.S. Constitution. Filed by trade lawyer David Craven on behalf of Global Aluminum Distributor, the lawsuit challenges EAPA penalties based on the amendment's prohibition on excessive fines.

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

The Court of International Trade extended to all unassigned cases a preliminary injunction halting the liquidation of unliquidated entries subject to the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 China tariffs for plaintiffs in the litigation challenging the tariffs, CIT said in a July 6 order. Cases challenging the tariffs continue to trickle in to CIT and, pursuant to an April 28 order, are automatically stayed without being assigned to the master litigation. Chief Judge Mark Barnett penned the extension order shortly after dissenting from the decision to issue the preliminary injunction (see 2107060077).

Changji Esquel Textile (CJE), a Hong Kong-based apparel company and part of the Esquel group of companies, filed a July 6 lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to have its placement on the Commerce Department's Entity List dropped (Changji Esquel Textile Co. Ltd. et al. v. Gina M. Raimondo et al., D.C. Cir. #21-01798). The Trump administration put CJE on the list last year for alleged practices of using forced labor from the Muslim Uyghur minority population in China's Xinjiang region.

Garg Tube Export and Garg Tube Limited want their challenge to the 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India in the Court of International Trade stayed pending their appeal in a related case over the existence of a particular market situation for hot-rolled coil in India. The Federal Circuit appeal will also address the Commerce Department's application of adverse facts available due to the plaintiffs' unaffiliated vendor's failure to submit costs of production data. Garg's July 6 motion to stay received the consent of the two defendant-intervenors, Nucor Tubular Products and Wheatland Tube, but will meet opposition from the Justice Department (Garg Tube Export LLP et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00169).

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

Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration wanted to intervene in a countervailing duty case on silicon metal from Kazakhstan in the Court of International Trade in June. It was denied for failing to comply with CIT Rule 24 -- the rules governing intervention. In particular, the defendant-intervenors and petitioners in the underlying CVD case, Globe Specialty Metals and Mississippi Silicon, said the trade ministry failed to state the issues it wanted to litigate (see 2106110029). Now, the ministry is back in CIT, filing a "renewed motion to intervene as plaintiff-intervenor" on June 16 (Tau-Ken Temir LLP et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00173).

The Court of International Trade will stop liquidation of unliquidated entries subject to litigation over List 3 and List 4A Section 301 China tariffs, a CIT panel said in a July 6 opinion (Court No. 21-00052). Granting a preliminary injunction, Judges Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves held that questions over limitations on CIT's ability to reliquidate the entries or grant a monetary judgment mean the Section 301 plaintiffs risk irreparable harm in the absence of one. Chief Judge Mark Barnett dissented, arguing that the court does have the power to reliquidate, and that the resulting lack of irreparable harm weighed against granting the injunction.

By subjecting aluminum extrusion importer Global Aluminum Distributor to two antidumping and countervailing duty evasion investigations for the same conduct and entries, CBP violated Global Aluminum's rights to due process, the importer said. Filing a July 2 complaint in the Court of International Trade, Global Aluminum called out the customs agency for breaking "long-standing principles of fundamental fairness" by including the importer in multiple evasion investigations under the Enforce and Protect Act -- a process already riddled with due process violations, according to the complaint (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00312).

The Commerce Department's decision to assume 24 working days per month for calculating surrogate labor rates, instead of 21 days, in an antidumping administrative review is unsupported, the Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood said in a June 24 motion for judgment in the Court of International Trade. The coalition said the agency failed to properly explain its switch to 24 working days after originally relying on 21 days in its preliminary determination (Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood v. United States, CIT #20-03930).