The Biden administration doesn't have a timeline for its decision on whether to allow states to import drugs from Canada, according to a May 28 memo supporting a motion to dismiss a challenge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America had challenged President Donald Trump's administration for allowing states to bring in Canadian drugs as a measure to control costs. The memo said that because no specific program has been authorized for imports, the plaintiffs “cannot establish any actual injury” relating to the presidential decision (Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, et al. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., D.D.C. #20-03402).

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

Turkish steel exporter Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi accused the Commerce Department of a "severe abuse of discretion" by rejecting entire questionnaire responses because certain parts were filed 21 minutes and 87 minutes late in an antidumping and a countervailing duty investigation, respectively. Celik Halat says Commerce should not have applied adverse facts available to its exports of prestressed concrete steel wire strand from Turkey due to the late filings in two May 28 motions for judgment. (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi A.S. v. United States, CIT #21-00045, #21-00050).

Steel exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. agreed to the Commerce Department's remand results dropping the cost-based particular market situation adjustment in the sales-below-cost test for imports of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, according to May 28 comments filed in the Court of International Trade. The Department of Justice also signed off on the remand results, finding that although Commerce filed the results under respectful protest, continuing to find a PMS in Thailand, the agency complied with court orders by scrapping the PMS adjustment (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #19-00208).

COVID-19 manufacturing complications distorted both the timing and the volume of imports over the post-petition period in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations into small vertical shaft engines from China, and the International Trade Commission should not have made findings of critical circumstances that led to imposition of retroactive AD/CV duties in the eventual AD/CVD orders, U.S. importer MTD Products Inc. alleged in a May 28 complaint filed in the Court of International Trade. Foreign manufacturers could not produce the subject merchandise for a "significant portion of the pre-petition period due to COVID-19-related plant closures," MTD said. "Further, COVID-19-related closures in the United States, in addition to commercial uncertainties regarding Petitioner’s long-term viability and inability to meet a spike in domestic demand artificially inflated import volumes over this period," the complaint said. "These extraordinary circumstances significantly distorted both the timing and volume of imports over the post-petition period, the first two factors the Commission must consider when making a finding of critical circumstances." (MTD Products Inc v. United States, CIT #21-00264).

A trailer with auto parts and tools exported to Canada to support Porsche race teams and then returned by Porsche does not qualify for duty-free treatment as “tools of the trade” under subheading 9801.00.05 because the tools were never declared to CBP, and the parts don’t qualify as tools, the Department of Justice said in a brief filed May 26 responding to Porsche’s motion for judgment in the case (see 2104270030).

The Commerce Department acted within its authority when it decided not to include the views of countertop fabricators in its industry support determination before beginning antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on quartz surface products from India, the Department of Justice said in a brief filed May 26 responding to an importer’s motion for judgment in the case.

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

South Korean wind tower maker CS Wind didn't receive any special benefit from the Import Duty Exemptions on Raw Materials for Exported Goods program and actually overreported information on its raw material inputs, making the application of adverse facts available improper, the Department of Justice argued. In a May 26 reply brief, DOJ responded to a challenge from the Wind Tower Trade Coalition claiming that the Commerce Department erred in not applying AFA to CS Wind in a countervailing duty investigation of utility-scale wind towers from Vietnam. WTTC argued that certain inputs of steel plate, a raw material in the wind towers, could have actually been imported instead of made in Vietnam (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, CIT #20-03692).

In complying with a May 25 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia order to remove the “Communist Chinese military company” designation from Chinese consumer electronics giant Xiaomi, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control issued a FAQ May 27 saying that the prohibitions under the designation “do not apply with respect to Xiaomi.” The Defense Department and Xiaomi jointly moved to drop the label after District Judge Rudolph Contreras said it violated the Administrative Procedure Act and was made on insufficient evidence (see 2105120047). To date, two other companies so labeled have challenged the designation in the D.C. district court, and one, Luokung Technologies, has been granted a preliminary injunction.