The Commerce Department cannot deduct Section 232 national security duties from antidumping duty respondent Borusan Mannesman's U.S. price because the duties are remedial, temporary and deducting them would count as a double remedy, making them unlike normal customs duties, the respondent argued. Filing a reply brief Aug. 4 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the respondent said Commerce failed to conduct a "fulsome analysis" of whether the Section 232 duties are more like normal customs duties or to special duties, like Section 201 safeguards, and instead "confined its analysis" to finding distinctions between Section 232 and Section 201 duties. The agency also failed to acknowledge the "legal and constitutional distinction between regular duties imposed by Congress" and special duties imposed by the president (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2097).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 4 order denied defendant Greenlight Organic and Parambir Singh Aulakh's motion for summary judgment over the date that the U.S. discovered customs fraud for the purpose of finding whether the statute of limitations had run out. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that the undisputed facts don't back any of three dates floated by the defendants as the date that the U.S. first received evidence of Greenlight's double invoicing scheme. In the scheme, Greenlight is accused of fraudulently misclassifying its Vietnam-origin knit garments.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP and importer Ohka America reached a settlement over the proper tariff classification of photoresists in three different cases at the Court of International Trade. According to the three separate stipulated judgments on agreed statement of facts, the parties reached an agreement on the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for the entries, dropping the duty rate from 6.5% to 3%. CBP originally liquidated the photoresists under HTS subheading 3707.90.32, which provides for "Chemical preparations for photographic uses (other than varnishes, glues, adhesives and similar preparations...: Other:Chemical preparations for photographic uses: Other." The parties agreed, though, to liquidate the entries under subheading 3707.10.00, whch provides for “Chemical preparations for photographic uses (other than varnishes, glues, adhesives and similar preparations). Sensitizing emulsions." The cases were filed in 2005, 2006 and 2008 (Ohka America v. United States, CIT #05-00118, #06-00415, #08-00029).
CBP and Lerner New York reached a settlement over the proper classification of two types of ladies' knitted tops. Filing a stipulated judgment on an agreed statement of facts at the Court of International Trade Aug. 1, the parties settled on a Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for the tops, dropping the duty rate from 17% to 10.9%. The dispute concerned ladies' knitted tops of over 90% cotton and less than 10% spandex with a built-in shelf bra and ladies' knitted tops of manmade fibers with a built-in shelf bra (Lerner New York v. U.S., CIT #05-00412).
Antidumping duty respondent and defendant-intervenor in a case at the Court of International Trade, Shakti Forge Industries, has switched its representation. Filing a notice of substitution of attorney, Shakti parted with its counsel at Barnes Richardson to employ Robert Gosselink and Aqmar Rahman at Trade Pacific. The case concerns the AD investigation on forged steel fittings from India (Bonney Forge v. U.S., CIT #20-03837).
The Commerce Department's "practice" cited by an antidumping duty respondent that says that Commerce will not consider new issues after an undefined point in a proceeding "does not actually exist," AD petitioner Wheatland Tube Co. argued in a July 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Wheatland said that Commerce properly used adverse facts available in the contested antidumping duty review to find that respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. was affiliated with various home market customers and that there is no merit to Saha Thai's claims that information submitted by Wheatland to clarify this affiliation information did not comply with Commerce's regulations (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00627).
The U.S., in a July 28 brief at the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, argued oral argument is needed in a case over alleged Jones Act penalties committed by shipping companies Kloosterboer International Forwarding and Alaska Reefer Management. The U.S. pushed back against KIF and ARM's opposition to oral argument, arguing that the meeting is needed to "fully vet the complex issues in this case" and fully inform the court about the record (Kloosterboer International Forwarding v. United States, D. Alaska #3:21-00198).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 1 order granted the U.S.'s motion to stay a consolidated case contesting an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case after the plaintiffs, led by Dominican manufacturer Kingtom Aluminio, backed off their opposition to the stay. The plaintiffs did so after CBP flipped its evasion finding on importers Global Aluminum Distributor and Hialeah Aluminum Supply. In the Global Aluminum Distributor case, CBP said it no longer believes the importers evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China by transshipping them through Kingtom in the Dominican Republic (see 2206150047). In Kingtom's two cases, the U.S. requested a stay until the court sorts out the Global Aluminum case. The stay was granted with Judge Richard Easton ordering the parties to confer and jointly submit a status report and a proposed briefing schedule 14 days from the date judgment is entered in the Global Aluminum Distributor case (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00072).