Importer PNS Clearance dismissed its case challenging the assessment of a 1.02% antidumping duty rate on its quartz countertops. The company brought suit earlier this year to contest CBP's liquidation of 227 of the quartz countertop entries, claiming that they should be liquidated at the proper de minimis mark (see 2402160049). PNS said it acted as the importer of record but that the actual buyer was M S International and that the exporter was Pokarna Engineered Stone, which received a zero percent AD rate following an AD review of the goods. Counsel for the importer didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on why the case was dismissed (PNS Clearance v. U.S., CIT # 24-00044).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Commerce Department abused its discretion by denying an exporter’s supplemental questionnaire extension request amid the COVID-19 pandemic’s 2021 delta variant wave, Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden ruled April 25. He pointed out that, by the time of the rejection, three of Simec’s key accountants had died of the disease and a fourth was "hospitalized and intubated."
The Commerce Department unlawfully rescinded an administrative review, falsely determining that an exporter hadn't made any U.S. sales during the period being examined, the exporter said in April 19 motion for judgment (China Cornici Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00217).
The Court of International Trade on April 22 sent back the Commerce Department's decision not to attribute subsidies received by lumber suppliers to respondents in an expedited countervailing duty review on Canadian softwood lumber. Judge Mark Barnett said that if Commerce continues to find that the respondents are the producers of the subject lumber, the agency must reconsider its decision to require an upstream subsidy allegation for lumber purchases within the class of covered merchandise.
The Court of International Trade on April 22 remanded parts of the Commerce Department's 2015 expedited review of the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada. Judge Mark Barnett sent back the agency's decision not to account for subsidies received by lumber suppliers to the CVD respondents and its decision to use exporter Fontaine's 2014 fiscal year tax returns to conduct benefit calculations for the 2015 review period. Barnett sustained Commerce's instructions to CBP to liquidate entries from companies that received de minimis rates without regard to CV duties, along with the agency's finding that Canadian and Quebecois logging tax credits were countervailable benefits.
The Court of International Trade on April 11 sent back the Commerce Department's duty drawback adjustment to exporter Assan Aluminyum, which led to a de minimis antidumping duty rate in the AD investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey. Judge Gary Katzmann said it "appears that" Commerce's methodology "impermissibly increased Assan's export price by more than 'the amount of any import duties imposed by the country of exportation which have been rebated."
The Court of International Trade on April 10 remanded the Commerce Department's use of a 10.54% adverse facts available rate for alleged benefits exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. received from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. Judge Timothy Stanceu agreed with Yama that the agency failed to show that the subsidy program from which the rate was taken -- preferential lending rates to China's coated paper industry program -- is similar to the EBCP.
The Court of International Trade on April 11 remanded the Commerce Department's duty drawback calculation methodology for exporter Assan Aluminyum that led to a de minimis rate in an antidumping duty investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey. Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce incorrectly applied the drawback adjustment to all Assan's U.S. sales although only some contributed directly to the receipt of duty exemptions in Turkey during the investigation period. The judge also said Commerce failed to fully explain its decision by not addressing two claims from the AD petitioners, the Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group.