The Court of International Trade in a June 7 order granted the U.S.'s bid for a stay in an Enforce and Protect Act case, halting proceedings until the Commerce Department issues its final determination in the relevant covered merchandise referral matter. The case concerns Fedmet Resources' challenge of a 2020 EAPA determination, in which CBP found that Fedmet had evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on magnesia alumina carbon (MAC) bricks from China. On April 27, CBP requested a stay to seek a covered merchandise referral from Commerce because it says that it's unable to determine whether the bricks it tested are covered merchandise (see 2204270072) (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT #21-00248).
The Commerce Department erred by finding that South Korea's provision of electricity below cost "conferred a non-measurable benefit," countervailing duty petitioner Nucor Corp. argued in a June 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Nucor railed against the "evidentiary flaws" Commerce relied on from cost data from South Korea's sole supplier of electricity, the Korean Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), but said that even using this data, it's clear that a benefit was conferred to the mandatory respondents (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00137).
The Commerce Department altered the basis for its use of adverse facts available on remand at the Court of International Trade in an antidumping case after the court said that antidumping respondent Dalian Meisen Woodworking's false advertisements cannot be used as grounds for AFA. Submitting its remand results on June 6, Commerce said that after issuing a host of new questionnaires to Meisen, including a questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification, it changed its bases for AFA, now basing it on the respondent's failure to provide "critical information" in the questionnaire and all of its U.S. affiliates (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00109).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Magnesia alumina carbon (MAC) brick exporter Fedmet Resources' move to oppose the U.S. stay motion in an Enforce and Protect Act case only delays resolution, DOJ argued in a June 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Fedmet opposes the stay and seeks the filing of a voluntary remand in a window that the U.S. says is impossible since it needs a covered merchandise referral determination from the Commerce Department -- the matter at the heart of the contested stay motion (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT #21-00248).
Legalization at the state level allows importer Keirton USA to “manufacture, possess, or distribute” marijuana but doesn't constitute a specific authorization to go against the "uniform Federal ban" on drug paraphernalia imports, DOJ said in a June 6 brief at the Court of International Trade (Keirton USA v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT #21-00452).
The Court of International Trade in a June 6 opinion dismissed test taker Byungmin Chae's lawsuit contesting five questions on the customs broker license exam. Judge Timothy Reif said CBP was right to dismiss Chae's appeal of four of the questions but that the agency wrongly denied the test taker's appeal for the fifth question. The reversal of one question wasn't enough to for a passing grade for Chae, who was two questions shy of the 75% threshold needed to pass the test.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Antidumping duty petitioner Nucor Corp.'s standards for quantitative data over a level of trade (LOT) adjustment misrepresent the Commerce Department's requirements for quantitative data, AD respondent Productos Laminados de Monterrey (Prolamsa) argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Nothing on the record suggests that Prolamsa's evidence was "incapable of being verified," the brief said (Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. v. U.S., CIT #20-00166).
When it comes to the question of whether a countervailing duty respondent's U.S. customers used China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, "'No' means 'no,'" respondent Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. said in a June 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Yama said it fully answered whether this program was used by any of its customers and that should be enough for Commerce to verify non-use (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00402).