Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit questioned counsel for both antidumping respondent Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi and the government on the Commerce Department's decision to use Turkish lira to value Habas' home-market sales in the 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled steel flat products from Turkey. Judges Kimberly Moore, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham questioned Habas' claim that U.S. dollars should have been used because its home market price negotiations, invoices and records all used U.S. dollars (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1158).
The Commerce Department reasonably picked the financial statements of San Shing Fastech Corp. to calculate the constructed value profit and indirect selling expenses of respondent Your Standing International in a review of the antidumping duty order on nails from Taiwan, the Court of International Trade held in a Feb. 7 decision. Judge Claire Kelly said the agency appropriately found that San Shing makes "comparable merchandise," has contemporaneous financial statements and sells over 70% of its products to markets outside the U.S.
A World Trade Organization dispute panel issued its report in Vietnam's challenge to U.S. antidumping duty proceedings on fish fillets from Vietnam after both sides agreed to a solution (see 2501230022). The panel concluded the proceeding in light of the "mutually agreed solution." Vietnam brought the suit in 2018 to challenge the U.S. government's imposition of AD cash deposit requirements in the fifth, sixth and seventh reviews of the AD order, covering entries in 2007-2010. Vietnam claimed that the U.S. should have revoked the order following the seventh review and that the U.S. unlawfully used a country-wide AD rate based on adverse facts available against respondents that were not individually investigated.
An indictment was unsealed Feb. 4 charging Wisconsin resident Mark Buschman with selling firearms and related parts to buyers in Saudi Arabia without a license, exporting the items and "lying to federal prosecutors about it," DOJ announced. Buschman allegedly ran an "illegal export conspiracy" for more than five years, February 2019 to December 2024, and now faces a maximum of 42 years in prison and up to $1.5 million in fines.
Sergei Zharnovnikov, a Kyrgyzstan national, was charged this week with illegal smuggling and conspiring to illegally export firearms from the U.S. to Russia. Zharnovnikov, who faces up to 30 years in prison if convicted, traveled to the U.S. last month for the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show in Las Vegas, where he was arrested.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Petitioner CP Kelco U.S. withdrew as a defendant-intervenor in an Enforce and Protect Act evasion case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a Feb. 6 motion. The appellate court held oral argument in the case in October 2024, indicating that the plaintiff, xanthan gum importer All One God Faith, doing business as Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, likely would not succeed in reversing the Court of International Trade's dismissal of the case, since its entries have all been liquidated (see 2410160048). Counsel for CP Kelco didn't respond to request for comment (All One God Faith v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).
The U.S. government fully supported the Commerce Department's decision not to use adverse facts available against exporter Can Tho Import Export Seafood Joint Stock Co. in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, the exporter argued in a Feb. 5 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Can Tho Import Export said Commerce properly found that the respondent fully cooperated in the review and that Commerce correctly rejected the petitioner's allegation of a ministerial error (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 24-00082).
A Wisconsin man filed a pro se lawsuit at the Court of International Trade challenging the president's ability to impose tariffs, arguing that any attempt by the president to levy import duties represents an improper delegation of power under the U.S. Constitution. The individual, Gary Barnes, said imposing tariffs "is not within the jurisdiction of the President's duties," noting that the power to levy tariffs rests solely with Congress (Gary L Barnes v. United States President Donald Trump, CIT # 25-00043).
The U.S. could use the False Claims Act to more aggressively combat tariff evasion, attorneys at Ropes & Gray said in a Feb. 3 alert. Companies should "carefully scrutinize their import policies and procedures to ensure they are adhering to all applicable laws," the firm said, adding that importers should ensure that they have "appropriate avenues" for internal and external parties to bring confidential reports to the company's attention.