Importer Sakar International Inc. filed four complaints at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 28 to challenge the classification of its smartphone and tablet covers. Made predominantly of plastic or silicone, the covers were classified by CBP under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 4202.92.45, 4202.92.90 or 4202.99.90, dutiable at either 17.6% or 20%.

The Commerce Department did not reasonably find that Chinese exporter Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. failed to rebut the presumption of de facto government control, barring the company from receiving a separate antidumping rate, the exporter argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Oct. 26 opening brief. Contesting the Court of International Trade's June ruling upholding Commerce's position that ZMC did not rebut this presumption, ZMC argued that Commerce was unwilling to address arguments presented by it that explained that it wasn't possible for the Chinese government to control ZMC through the labor union that owns most of its shares. This established an "irrebuttable presumption that cannot be rebutted by any factual or legal arguments," contrary to law, the brief said.

The Commerce Department's simple average of the de minimis and the adverse facts available China-wide rates to derive the all-others rate in an antidumping case did not reasonably reflect the potential dumping margin of the separate rate respondents, PrimeSource Building Products argued in an Oct. 18 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The AFA negates the presumption that mandatory respondents' rates reflect the separate rate respondents, and prior reviews show that cooperating separate respondents' rates are lower than firms subject to AFA, the brief argued (PrimeSource Building Products, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03911).

The Commerce Department properly applied adverse facts available when weighing antidumping respondent Bosun Tool's country of origin information using a first-in, first-out (FIFO) methodology, the Court of International Trade said in an Oct. 27 opinion. Judge Claire Kelly found that although Bosun cooperated to the best of its ability with the AD review, the use of AFA was warranted because an exporter is reasonably expected to keep documents that properly document country of origin -- something that the FIFO methodology does not do.

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Multinational conglomerate Honeywell Inc. expects to pay upwards of $160 million to settle investigations by the Department of Justice and Brazilian law enforcement over alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the company said in its quarterly report filed on Oct. 22 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company said it continues to cooperate with DOJ and the SEC throughout the investigations, including regarding a potential resolution of the allegations. Honeywell said that it recorded a $160 million charge in its Consolidated Statement of Operations, also accruing a liability on its Consolidated Balance Sheet to account for the expected payout.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has the jurisdiction to hear a case involving Turkey's state-owned bank Halkbank's sanctions-evasion charges, the appellate court said in an Oct. 22 opinion. Rejecting a motion to dismiss the case from Halkbank, a three-judge panel at the court said that the district court properly found that it had jurisdiction over federal criminal prosecution of Halkbank, skirting immunity conferred under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. However, the 2nd Circuit stopped short of answering whether the FSIA universally confers immunity on foreign sovereigns in a criminal context. Even if the act gave Halkbank immunity, the panel said that Halkbank qualified for commercial activity exceptions to immunity because its sanctions evasion scheme happened in the U.S.

Anonymous solar producers still have yet to justify their requests for anti-circumvention inquiries on solar cells from Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand, so the Commerce Department should decline to initiate the inquiries altogether, said NextEra and Florida Power & Light in their Oct. 25 response to additional information submitted by the producers nearly two weeks prior.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 22 backed the Commerce Department's decision to pick Malaysia as the primary surrogate country in an antidumping duty review, despite using a Romanian company's financial statements to determine the surrogate financial ratios is backed by substantial evidence. Sustaining Commerce's remand results in the AD review, Chief Judge Mark Barnett also upheld the agency's surrogate value selection for bituminous coal, an input of the subject merchandise of the review, activated carbon, and Commerce's financial ratio calculations.

CBP on Oct. 18 asked the Alaska U.S. District Court to reconsider a temporary restraining order it issued on Jones Act penalties levied against Alaskan shipping companies, arguing that the TRO is "overbroad." Seeking to preserve its right to issue Jones Act penalties on shipments for which the five-year statute of limitations may run out, CBP wants to change the injunction from applying to any penalty notices relating to the Jones Act violation in question to just applying to penalty notices issued on or after Sept. 30 (Kloosterboer International Forwarding LLC, et al. v. United States, D. Alaska #3:21-00198).