Despite sales terms to the contrary, a Hong Kong middleman never held title to merchandise imported from China and Taiwan into the U.S., so “first sale” valuation is unavailable and the goods should be valued at the price paid by the importer, CBP said in a recent ruling. Incoterms aside, the importer paid for freight and insurance, and title transferred alongside risk of loss directly from the manufacturer to the importer, with the middleman acting more as agent, CBP said in HQ H316892.
The Commerce Department is finalizing a two-year waiver from antidumping and countervailing duties for solar cells and modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam that are subject to ongoing anticircumvention inquiries. The agency’s Sept. 16 final rule mandates that no suspension of liquidation, cash deposit requirements or AD/CV duty assessments will apply until June 6, 2024, in the event that Commerce finds circumvention of Chinese solar cells duties, though the grace period could be terminated earlier, and the solar cells must now be used within a certain period to qualify.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 18 upheld the Commerce Department’s decision to apply facts available to production costs for a French steel plate exporter unable to distinguish between costs for its prime and non-prime merchandise, but again remanded the agency’s determination to use sales prices as a stand-in.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 18 dismissed a lawsuit filed by the maker of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps and other importers to challenge an Enforce and Protect Act determination that they evaded antidumping duties on xanthan gum from China. The trade court found the soapmaker, All One God Faith, as well as another importer did not file suit under jurisdiction provisions for denied protests, and so could not overcome the erroneous liquidation of their entries by CBP.
The Commerce Department did give a Chinese cabinet exporter a fair chance when it continued to rely on adverse facts available despite a court order that invalidated the agency’s original reasoning for the AFA rate, the exporter said in an Aug. 15 brief opposing Commerce’s remand results (Dalian Meisen Woodworking v. U.S., CIT # 20-00109).
An importer of recyclable material with a negative valuation can use the transaction value of similar goods that had a positive valuation to appraise the merchandise, CBP said in a recent ruling. Though goods with a negative price can’t be appraised using transaction value, fluctuations in the prices of the underlying metals means some shipments of the recyclable materials will have positive prices that can be used to appraise the negatively priced entries, CBP said.
Two importers each will pay seven-figure sums to settle False Claims Act lawsuits related to the undervaluation of their customs entries and underpayment of duties, DOJ said Aug. 11. Apparel importer Luchiano Visconti and its manager, Sasha Hourizadeh, will together pay $3.64 million to settle allegations they sent fraudulent invoices to their customs broker that understated the actual price paid. In a separate settlement, Eos Energy Storage will pay $1.02 million to resolve allegations that it failed to declare assists and other additions to transaction value.
Remand redeterminations recently submitted by the Commerce Department in two related cases are not final agency decisions that can be sustained by the Court of International Trade, and doing so would circumvent the trade court’s judicial review process, CIT said in a pair of Aug. 10 decisions rejecting the remand results in a case involving a scope ruling on door thresholds.
CBP has no basis to consider a country’s non-market economy status when determining whether to grant first sale treatment to a transaction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Aug. 11 in a widely anticipated decision involving cookware imported by Meyer.
The Commerce Department continued to apply countervailing duties for China’s Export Buyer’s Credit Program to two Chinese wooden cabinet exporters in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade Aug. 5, despite a court-ordered effort by the agency to validate non-use of the program without information withheld by the Chinese government.