The Commerce Department reconsidered its rejection of exporter AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's proposed quality code for sour service petroleum transport on remand at the Court of International Trade. Submitting its redetermination on Sept. 7, the agency said it used the exporter's proposed quality code due to its decision in Bohler Bleche BMBH & Co. v. U.S., leading to an increase in Dillinger's dumping rate to 4.99% as part of the antidumping duty investigation on steel cut-to-length plate from Germany (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT # 17-00158).
The International Trade Commission did not err by declining to resolve an alleged ambiguity in the definition of the domestic like product scope as part of an antidumping duty injury investigation on fabricated structural steel from China, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled. Upholding the commission's negative injury finding, Judges Jimmie Reyna, William Bryson and Tiffany Cunningham said that nothing in the record showed that the ITC declined to address the issue, as claimed by the Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC).
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 6 opinion rejected a U.S. motion to dismiss cases from three importers challenging the Commerce Department's denial of their Section 233 steel tariff exclusion requests. The government said the cases should be tossed since they concern entries that already had been finally liquidated, but Judge M. Miller Baker held that it's possible for the court to order liquidation in Administrative Procedure Act cases brought under Section 1581(i), even if liquidation is final.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A lawsuit from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman against her colleagues' investigation into her fitness to continue serving on the bench should be dismissed, CAFC Judges Kimberly Moore, Sharon Prost and Richard Taranto argued in a Sept. 1 motion to dismiss. The judges -- who comprise the three-judge panel carrying out the investigation on the 96-year-old Newman -- said that Newman's suit "suffers from fatal jurisdictional flaws" (The Hon. Pauline Newman v. The Hon. Kimberly A. Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).
The U.S. and antidumping duty petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition failed to respond to the "critical arguments" raised by exporter Dongkuk S&C Co. in a case on the AD investigation on utility scale wind towers from South Korea, Dongkuk told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In a Sept. 1 reply brief, Dongkuk said both the government and the coalition did not, or could not, establish that the Commerce Department relied on substantial evidence when it weight averaged the respondent's steel plate cost for all reported control numbers (CONNUMs) (Dongkuk S&C Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #23-1419).
Byungmin Chae, a Nebraska man who took the customs broker license exam, petitioned the Supreme Court of the U.S. to hear his appeal of his test results. Chae appealed his test results to CBP, the Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, receiving credit for some of the question answers he challenged, but ultimately falling just one correct answer shy of a passing grade on the April 2018 exam (Byungmin Chae v. Janet Yellen, U.S. Sup. Ct. # 23-200).
China recently passed a law permitting Chinese courts to hear lawsuits against foreign governments, ending the nation's policy of absolute state immunity. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Commerce said that the law "affirms the fundamental principle that a foreign State and its property enjoy immunity in China," while noting that certain exceptions now exist for disputes involving "a commercial activity, relevant personal injury and property damage." The spokesperson said the law complies with international legal rules.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Counsel for importer Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. was allowed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to appear remotely for the company's oral argument in its customs suit on plastic-dipped knit gloves. Magid Gloves brought its case to the appellate court after the Court of International Trade said the gloves belong under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6116 instead of under heading 3926 (see 2203280037). In its arguments, the importer said the case rests on the definition of "completely embedded," claiming that "if the knit fabric making up the shell of the glove is completely embedded in plastic, the gloves" would not fit under Section XI and, thus, from heading 6116 (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1793).