The following are short summaries of recent CBP “NY” rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
A pasta maker found ineligible for an acquired company’s antidumping duty exemption in a 2014 changed circumstances review cannot use that predecessor’s antidumping and countervailing duty rates for entries before the effective date of the final results of that review, CBP said in a recent ruling. Instead, the pasta maker must file at the all others rate for entries before the changed circumstances review took effect, CBP said in HQ H287183, issued March 26 and posted to CBP’s CROSS database June 3.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated June 3 and 4 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
Three entries of crystaline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) products should not have been assessed antidumping and countervailing duties since the importer properly selected entry dates on its entry summary that preceeded the effective date of a scope ruling that found them covered by AD/CVD orders, Puerto Rico company Aireko Construction argued in a June 4 motion for summary judgment. Though Aireko had indicated the newly selected entry dates in a timely amendment to its protest, CBP ignored the amendment when it assessed AD/CV duties as if the entries had been filed after the scope ruling took effect, Aireko said (Aireko Construction LLC. v. United States, CIT #20-00128).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP “NY” rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Court of International Trade on June 2 stayed a case challenging an Enforce and Protect Act determination of antidumping duty evasion pending the resolution of a related case on the scope of the underlying AD order. Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden ordered that within 14 days of the resolution of the AD scope case, the Department of Justice and plaintiff Thai pipe exporter Blue Pipe Steel Center Co. will file a status report and proposed briefing schedule. The related case on the scope ruling concerns whether dual stenciled pipe is covered under the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. In the motion to stay proceedings, Blue Pipe argued that if the scope ruling were deemed to be unlawful, “CBP’s determination of Blue Pipe’s evasion should also be deemed unlawful” (Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00081).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP “NY” rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
CBP has released its June 2 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 55, No. 21), which includes the following ruling actions:
Thai pipe exporter Blue Pipe Steel Center Co. filed an unopposed motion to stay proceedings on June 1 in its Enforce and Protect Act challenge until a decision is received from a related case involving a scope ruling on the underlying antidumping duty order in the Court of International Trade. Blue Pipe is hoping to reverse the affirmative determination that its dual stenciled pipe evaded antidumping duties on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Since a related lawsuit from Saha Thai is challenging a scope ruling that found that dual-stenciled pipe was covered by the AD duty order, Blue Pipe's case should wait until the scope matter is settled, the company said.
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.