The Court of International Trade on May 23 entered a default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner Doris Cheng due to their failure to file an answer to the government's complaint accusing them of avoiding antidumping and Section 301 duties on uncovered mattress innersprings from China (United States v. Rayson Global, CIT # 23-00201).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 28 issued its mandate in a case on whether Australian antidumping duty respondent BlueScope Steel (AIS) reimbursed its affiliated U.S. importer, BlueScope Steel Americas, for AD. In the decision, the appellate court said AIS didn't reimburse its affiliate, ruling it would have been "unreasonable" for the exporter to include the AD in the price charged to the importer because the exporter itself wasn't responsible for the duties (see 2404040020). The case concerned the 2017-18 review of the AD order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia (U.S. Steel Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2078).
The Court of International Trade last week remanded the Commerce Department's finding that Germany's Konzessionsabgabenverordnung (KAV) program, which exempts a fee for gas and power pipeline companies that sell electricity below a certain price point that would otherwise be passed onto consumers, wasn't a specific subsidy. Judge Claire Kelly sent the case back for the fourth time, finding that the agency must further investigate whether an alleged subsidy is de facto specific when facts give "reasons to believe" the subsidy may be de facto specific.
The U.S. moved to dismiss a customs penalty suit it brought against importers Cruzin Cooler and Bad Lama and their owner Kevin Beal after it already obtained default judgment from the Court of International Trade against the companies for knowingly misclassifying their entries to lower their duty liability (United States v. Cruzin Cooler, CIT # 15-00333).
TikTok and a group of TikTok users filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 17 for expedited consideration of their consolidated action challenging the constitutionality of a recently enacted bill either banning or forcing a sale of the social media platform (TikTok v. Merrick Garland, D.C. Cir. # 24-1113).
CBP continued to find on remand that importer Skyview Cabinet USA evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. After having the case returned to the agency following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., CBP allowed Skyview to submit rebuttal factual information to confidential information it didn't originally have access to, though it ultimately came to the same conclusion (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, CIT # 22-00080).
U.S. Steel Corp. moved for leave to join importer California Steel Industries' case challenging rejections of its requests for Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions as amicus curiae, after its efforts to intervene in the suit were thwarted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (California Steel Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00015).
Global law firm Dentons on May 20 announced the launch of "a comprehensive offering to support" businesses in navigating the "opportunities and challenges" from the Australia-U.K.-U.S. (AUKUS) partnership, a deal that is expected to lead to new defense trade exemptions and other business opportunities for companies from the three countries (see 2404300050, 2404180035 and 2405140038). The firm said it will help companies "participate in public-private partnership opportunities afforded by AUKUS and navigate funding, policy, and regulatory issues." Those may include issues relating to defense contracting, technology transfers, supply chain integration and new export markets, it said.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Valeo North America told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Commerce Department violated a "foundational principle of administrative law" in concluding the company's T-series aluminum sheet was covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders. Commerce failed to follow its "well-established legal framework" in making the scope decision, neglecting its duty as an administrative agency to provide coherent, ascertainable guidance so that regulated parties may anticipate how agencies enforce their rules and regulations," Valeo said (Valeo North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1189).