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

The Court of International Trade should uphold CBP's finding that importers Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co. evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel grating from China, defendant-intervenor Hog Slat argued in a Jan. 20 reply brief at CIT. The trade court must reject the plaintiff's arguments that their tribar flooring imports are not under the scope of the orders since CBP's covered merchandise finding "reflected the typical analysis undertaken by Commerce with respect to questions of scope which, although not required of CBP, demonstrates the analytical reasonableness of CBP's approach," the brief said (Ikadan System USA v. United States, CIT #21-00592).

Counterweights for mini excavators should be subject to Section 301 tariffs because they qualify as parts for "backhoes," the government argued in a Jan. 23 brief at the Court of International Trade. DOJ asked the court to deny plaintiff Norca Engineered Products' Nov. 3 motion for summary judgment and to find that the counterweights are backhoe parts and therefore not subject to a Section 301 exclusion (Norca Engineered Products v. U.S., CIT #21-00305).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential Jan. 24 opinion upheld CBP's evasion finding in an Enforce and Protect Act case brought by Leco Supply. In a letter accompanying the decision, Judge Mark Barnett gave the parties until Jan. 31 to review the confidential information in the opinion (Leco Supply v. United States, CIT # 21-00136).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 20 order dismissed a case on the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. Commerce originally tapped two mandatory respondents in the review, selecting Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon and Jilin Bright Future Chemicals. The agency gave Datong Juqing a zero percent dumping rate while assigning Jilin Bright a $0.62 per kilogram dumping margin. The agency then assigned separate rate respondents the same $0.62/kg rate it gave to Jilin Bright (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., et al. v. United States, CIT #22-00335).

Under the Commerce Department's countervailing duty regulations, any subsidy on inputs dedicated to the downstream product must refer to subject merchandise, plaintiff Gujarat Fluorochemicals (GFL) argued in a Jan. 20 supplemental brief at the Court of International Trade. The exporter said it would be "illogical" to apply the regulation to inputs mainly used to make non-subject merchandise since this interpretation "would create a broader subsidy than provided by the statute" (Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited v. United States, CIT # 22-00120).

Boronized steel tubes made in the U.S. are unfinished steel goods, not repaired articles, DOJ argued in a Jan. 20 counterclaim that is seeking $760,000 in unpaid duties at the Court of International Trade in a denied protest case filed by an importer (Maple Leaf Marketing v. United States, CIT # 20-03839).

The Court of International Trade dismissed a case contesting the International Trade Commission's antidumping duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia and South Korea for lack of prosecution (Tenaris Bay City, Inc., et al. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00345). Plaintiffs Tenaris Bay City, Maverick Tube, Ipsco Tubulars and Siderca filed three other cases contesting the ITC's injury determination and the related antidumping duty investigation by the Department of Commerce (see 2301180047). Unlike the other cases, the Dec. 16 summons was never followed up on by the plaintiffs before it was dismissed by the court.

The Supreme Court of the U.S. held oral arguments on Jan. 17 over Turkish state-owned Halkbank's claims that the U.S. judicial system does not have the jurisdiction to hear criminal cases against foreign governments and their state-owned entities. Halkbank is attempting to shirk prosecution over its efforts to help Iran evade U.S. sanctions in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The bank's arguments received a mixed reaction from the Supreme Court, with numerous justices expressing doubt over the plaintiff's claims that it is immune from criminal prosecution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. U.S., #21-1450).