The Commerce Department did not provide enough assistance to three exporters of Indian shrimp as required by law during antidumping duty administrative reviews, the Court of International Trade said in a Jan. 3 decision. During a review of frozen warmwater shrimp from India, Indian exporters Calcutta Seafoods, Bay Seafood and Elque & Co. were not granted sufficient help after requesting it from the Commerce, CIT said, ordering Commerce to reconsider the antidumping rates it placed on the three companies' shrimp imports, with specific instructions to reopen the administrative review to further help the importers provide adequate information for the review.
Court of International Trade
The United States Court of International Trade is a federal court which has national jurisdiction over civil actions regarding the customs and international trade laws of the United States. The Court was established under Article III of the Constitution by the Customs Courts Act of 1980. The Court consists of nine judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is located in New York City. The Court has jurisdiction throughout the United States and has exclusive jurisdictional authority to decide civil action pertaining to international trade against the United States or entities representing the United States.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 25-31:
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 27 declined to dismiss a nail importer's challenge to Section 232 steel "derivatives" tariffs, but stopped short of finding in the importer's favor. In a lengthy opinion that drew an even longer dissent, two members of a three-judge CIT panel ruled against the government's motion to dismiss PrimeSource's claims that the derivatives tariffs ran afoul of the deadlines for tariff changes under Section 232, but held that more information was needed before it could render a final decision.
More than 3,500 Section 301 complaints have inundated the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging the lawfulness of the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports, “and there’s likely more to come,” trade lawyer John Brew of Crowell & Moring told a Sports and Fitness Industry Association webinar Jan. 26.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 18-24:
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 21 ruled that Midwest Fastener's strike pin anchors are not nails, and are not subject to antidumping duties on steel nails from China. After a series of decisions wherein CIT told Commerce to reconsider its scope ruling that the strike pin anchors are subject to AD duties, the trade court ruled that an Aug. 28 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in a related case answers the question of scope coverage definitively, holding masonry anchors from OMG aren't nails and can't be covered by an identical AD duty order on steel nails from Vietnam (see 2008280039). In light of that definitive decision, CIT departed from its earlier decisions that held the scope's coverage of masonry anchors ambiguous, and directed Commerce to perform a more thorough analysis. “Commerce should now make its determination in accordance with the Court of Appeals’” holding, CIT said, giving the agency 60 days to submit its remand redetermination.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 11-17:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 4-10:
The procedural stalemate in the Section 301 lawsuits inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade is traceable to Chief Judge Timothy Stanceu and his staff “really looking at everything very carefully,” Grunfeld Desiderio partner Ned Marshak said in an interview. His firm has filed about 800 of the 3,700 complaints, including a case filed Jan. 6 on behalf of flooring company R.A. Siegel based on a two-year statute of limitations running from a 2019 date of liquidation. All the complaints seek to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings and get the duties refunded. Most of the actions based timeliness within the two-year statute of limitations dating to when List 3 was published in the Federal Register or when the tariffs took effect on Sept. 24, 2018. Fewer based the two-year window on dating to when List 3 tariffs were first paid.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 28 - Jan. 3: