Stanley Black & Decker moved to stay proceedings in its case challenging the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff expansion to include steel "derivative" products, in a July 30 filing in the Court of International Trade pending the appeal of the PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S. case (Stanley Black & Decker v. U.S., CIT #21-00262). Seeing as the PrimeSource case, currently working its way through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, is the case on the forefront of the Section 232 steel derivative tariff question, resolution of Stanley's case should wait until its appeal is settled, the company argued. "The ultimate resolution of the PrimeSource case will likely resolve this matter without the necessity of going to trial, or, alternatively, it may narrow the issues in dispute," the brief said. "Therefore, a stay of this matter until 65 days after a final decision in the PrimeSource case would be the most efficient course of action, serve the interests of the parties, and promote judicial economy." Stanley filed its case after PrimeSource was decided (see 2105270086).

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

Amazon threw its hefty weight into the Section 301 litigation inundating the Court of International Trade, alleging in a complaint that the lists 3 and 4A tariffs are unlawful under the 1974 Trade Act, violate Administrative Procedure Act rules against sloppy rulemakings, and are unconstitutional because only Congress, not the executive branch, has the power to levy taxes. Amazon reported 2020 revenue of $386.1 billion and is believed now to be the second-largest Section 301 plaintiff by revenue behind Walmart, which sued the government March 8. Walmart reported $559.2 billion in revenue for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31. Both companies are the relatively few among the roughly 6,500 importer plaintiffs to challenge the tariffs on constitutionality grounds. Crowell & Moring is representing Amazon. Walmart’s attorneys are from Hogan Lovells. Both law firms have representatives that sit on the 15-member plaintiffs’ steering committee formed in late March to help manage the massive litigation.

The Court of International Trade issued two opinions on Aug. 3 sustaining the Commerce Department's remand results that held that Simpson Strong-Tie Company's split-drive anchors and crimp drive anchors do not fall within the scope of the antidumping duty order on certain steel nails from China. Following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, OMG, Inc. v. United States, Commerce changed its findings for both products to exclude them from the order. The Federal Circuit held in OMG that masonry anchors are not nails and thus excluded from the order. Since Simpson's split-drive and crimp drive anchors are similar, they are also excluded, the court held.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas properly struck down the crude oil export tax under 26 U.S.C. Section 4611(b) as unconstitutional, commodity trading and logistics house Trafigura Trading said in its July 30 brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The tax on crude oil exports violates the U.S. Constitution's Export Clause banning any taxes on exports, the company said. As a result, the district court appropriately awarded Trafigura a $4.2 million refund for its taxes paid, the company said (Trafigura Trading LLC v. U.S., 5th Cir. #21-20127).

Strait Shipbrokers and its managing director, Murtuza Mustafa Munir Basrai, filed a complaint July 19 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging its Specially Designated Nationals listing (see 2101050012). The Trump administration made the designation after concluding the company helped with the transport of petroleum from Iran. Straight Shipbroker countered, claiming it's not required to check the origin of its cargo in its role as a broker and that the designation was made in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and its Fifth Amendment rights to due process (Strait Shipbrokers Pte. Ltd. et al. v. Blinken et al., D.C. Cir. #21-01946).

The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's second remand results for the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Taiwan, in a July 30 confidential opinion. In a letter sent to the litigants, Chief Judge Mark Barnett said that the parties have until Aug. 6 to identify any confidential information to be redacted in the public version of the opinion. Barnett did signal, however, that he does not believe there is any confidential information in the text as it currently stands. In the most recent opinion in the case, Barnett remanded Commerce's selection of the petition rate as adverse facts available since the agency didn't adequately corroborate the rate (Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #18-00027).

The Court of International Trade should grant the Commerce Department's cross-motion for judgment, enforcing the antidumping and countervailing duty rates at which the agency instructed CBP to liquidate crystalline silicon photovoltaic products entries, Commerce said in a July 30 brief. While CBP initially imposed an incorrect AD duty rate for the entries in question, the government defense said it identified the proper rate at which the court should enforce the duties (Aireko Construction LLC v. United States, CIT #20-00128).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from Novolipetsk Steel Public Joint Stock Company and Novex Trading (Swiss) SA on July 29 in a challenge of the 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled flat rolled carbon-quality steel products. In November 2020, the Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's final results in the case, holding that it was reasonable for the agency to find that the statute permitted it to disregard sales it found were not bona fide from the review. After Novolipetsk and Novex took their case to the Federal Circuit, the plaintiffs also moved to reconsider the case in the trade court. CIT then denied their motion to reconsider the case in an April decision. The Federal Circuit's dissmissal of the appeal came without opinion.