The Commerce Department continued to defend its use of adverse facts available relating to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty case despite recent claims that it has discredited its position on this program. In a Nov. 2 brief filed at the Court of International Trade, Commerce said that it is not simply compelled to rely on CVD respondents' statements that an alleged subsidy program was not used when a government fails to give information on how the program was administered to the point where verification of non-use is impossible (Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings v. U.S., CIT #21-00166).

CBP should have liquidated Accolade USA Inc.'s apparel imports at the transaction price between it and its Canadian parent company Accolade Group Inc. (AGI), Accolade USA argued in its Oct. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The apparel imports qualify for the transaction value since the relationship between AGI and Accolade USA doesn't impact the price paid for the apparel and the sale is made on the terms that it's for exportation to the U.S., the complaint said.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department's decision to reverse the adjustment to an antidumping duty review respondent's reported costs, relying instead on the actual costs of prime and non-prime products as reported by the respondent, complies with the standard set in the Dillinger France v. U.S decision, Commerce said. Replying to the antidumping respondent, Maverick Tube Corporation, in a Nov. 3 reply brief, Commerce said that its position did not require further consideration, but in fact a reversal, to comply with orders from the Court of International Trade (Husteel v. U.S., CIT #19-00112).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Nov. 2 rejected agricultural merchandise importer Ben Ghee Tan's rationale for not appearing before CBP to testify in an investigation over owed duties. Tan argued that CBP hadn't provided enough information about the subjects he was to be asked during testimony, as required by the statute. A three-judge panel at the 9th Circuit sided with a California district court in this case, rejecting Tan's interpretation of the text (United States v. Ben Ghee Tan, 9th Circ. #20-56399).

Importer Incase Design filed two complaints at the Court of International Trade in a bid to secure its preferred classification of its car Apple cellphone chargers. CBP liquidated the chargers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8504.40.95, which provides for “[e]lectrical transformers, static converters (for example, rectifiers) and inductors; parts thereof: Static converters: Other,” dutiable at 1.5%. Incase argues that the proper HTS home for the car chargers is 8504.40.85, which provides for “[e]lectrical transformers, static converters (for example, rectifiers) and inductors; parts thereof: Static converters: For telecommunication apparatus,” free of duty (Incase Design Corp. v. U.S., CIT #16-00235, #17-00046).

Manufacturer and distributor Irwin Industrial Tool filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade seeking to secure a particular customs classification for its locking pliers in line with prior CIT rulings on the issue. The locking pliers have two handles with two opposing metal jaws with metal teeth connected by a joint or pivot that also includes a spring mechanism (Irwin Industrial Tool Company v. U.S., CIT #15-00107).

International conglomerate Honeywell filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade to secure its preferred customs classification of its radial and chordal brake segments imports. After they're imported, the brake segments are manufactured into brake discs for airplanes (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT #17-00256).

The Department of Justice will move to voluntarily dismiss a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit challenging a 2020 amendment to an antidumping suspension agreement on sugar from Mexico after the court upheld the Court of International Trade's denials of two related cases (see 2107190038). Letting the appellate court know of the DOJ's intended move in an Oct. 29 joint status report, both the defendant-appellants, led by DOJ, and the plaintiff-appellee CSC Sugar said they believe it would be appropriate for the court to dismiss these consolidated appeals (CSC Sugar LLC v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #20-1275).

The Commerce Department reverted to its initial decision in an antidumping duty investigation to adjust a Turkish pipe exporter's post-sale price by only one-third of a late delivery penalty in Nov. 2 remand results filed at the Court of International Trade. Submitting the remand following a mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversing a CIT opinion, Commerce also dropped its particular market situation adjustment to the respondent Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret's costs for the sales-below-cost test (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00056).