The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 6 order denied defendant-intervenor Endura Products' motion for a stay of proceedings in an Enforce and Protect Act case brought by Columbia Aluminum Products, pending the resolution of a scope proceeding at the trade court. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that the stay motion failed to show that it would serve the twin objectives of "fairness to the litigants and judicial economy."

A protest of a CBP decision must be filed within 180 days of liquidation and not the date the Commerce Department issues antidumping and countervailing duty instructions to CBP or the date CBP denies an importer's refund request, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in a Feb. 6 opinion. Upholding a Court of International Trade decision, judges Timothy Dyk, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes dismissed a case from importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, that challenges a CBP assessment of countervailing duties, on the grounds that the company failed to file a protest.

CBP adhered to the Court of International Trade's order by complying with the requirement to provide public summaries of confidential information in an Enforce and Protect Act case and reviewing the entire record transmitted from one offce of CBP to another, the government argued in a Feb. 2 reply brief. Responding to arguments from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee over the use of public summaries to protect certain confidential information, the U.S. said that neither the EAPA statute, CBP's regulations nor the court's remand order permits or requires CBP to make "substantive" confidential information public (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee v. United States, CIT # 21-00129).

Imported net wraps used to secure crops in a round bale should be classified as parts of agricultural machines rather than as "warp knit fabric," importer RKW Klerks argued in its Feb. 2 opening brief at U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal asks the court to reverse the judgment of the Court of International Trade and hold that imported netwrap is properly classified either as parts of hay balers under subheading 8433.90.50 or as parts of agricultural machinery under subheading 8439.90.00, both duty-free. In the further alternative, RKW asked the court to remand the case to CIT for further proceedings (RKW Klerks v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1210).

Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari in a Feb. 2 brief at the Court of International Trade railed against U.S. Steel's bid to intervene in a case challenging the International Trade Commission's decision not to review an antidumping injury proceeding. The exporter said that U.S. Steel Corp. filed for intervention under the wrong legal standard since the case was established under Section 1581(i), the trade court's "residual" jurisdiction, and not Section 1581(c). Even if this point were irrelevant, Erdemir said the court should still prevent U.S. Steel (USSC) from intervening in the case since it was not a proper party to the underlying proceeding (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. United States, CIT # 22-00349).

The U.S. and the Wind Tower Trade Coalition failed to show that the Commerce Department's findings in a countervailing duty case on wind towers from Canada were supported by substantial evidence, plaintiff-appellants Quebec and Canada and respondent Marmen Energie argued in a Feb. 1 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Quebec v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1807).

The Commerce Department stuck by its decision not to investigate the alleged off-peak sale of electricity for less than adequate remuneration and not to treat POSCO Plantec -- an affiliate of countervailing duty respondent POSCO -- as a cross-owned input supplier of POSCO. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 31, Commerce said that the subsidy allegation over the provision of off-peak electricity "did not provide sufficient evidence of a benefit for Commerce to initiate on the allegation," and that the inputs provided by POSCO Planted were not mainly dedicated to downstream product production (Nucor Corp. v. United States, CIT # 21-00182).

The Court of International Trade upheld CBP's affirmative evasion finding in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation against Leco Supply, in a confidential Jan. 24 opinion made public Feb. 1. Judge Mark Barnett held that CBP legally initiated the investigation, backed the evasion decision with substantial evidence, properly rejected Leco's written arguments during remand as untimely and protected the plaintiff's due process rights.

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Importer Royal Brush Manufacturing has failed to rebut the U.S.'s showing that an appeal of an Enforce and Protect Act case should be dismissed since the entries have all been liquidated, the government argued in a Jan. 30 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Royal Brush failed to address the U.S. reliance on Federal Circuit precedent showing that "an unprotested liquidation divests the trial court of jurisdiction, even if the liquidation was erroneous," the brief said (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1226).