The U.S. joined a case against importer Barco Uniforms, companies that supply Barco and the two individuals that control the suppliers for allegedly violating the False Claims Act by knowingly underpaying customs duties on apparel imports, DOJ announced. The suit was originally filed in 2016 under the FCA's whistleblower provision by Toni Lee, the former director of product commercialization at Barco. The U.S. intervened in the case, filing a complaint on April 11.
Four wheel exporters will appeal a February Court of International Trade decision sustaining the inclusion of trailer wheels made of Chinese rims and Thai discs in the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on steel trailer wheels from China. Filing four notices of appeal, exporters Asia Wheel Co., Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel, Trailstar and Dexter Distribution Group f/k/a Textrail said they will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the case, CIT Judge Gary Katzmann said that Commerce didn't illegally expand the scope of the orders since the agency left open the possibility in the original AD/CVD investigations to discuss mixed-origin wheels in a later scope ruling (see 2502210039) (Asia Wheel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00096).
The Court of International Trade on April 19 denied a group of Canadian lumber exporters' bid to have the court explicitly state CBP's obligation to refund countervailing duty cash deposits established by the court in a previous decision. Judge Mark Barnett said the exporters haven't shown that there was any clerical or other mistake in the court's previous order and that "the equities do not favor granting" this requested relief.
CIT Says Several Components, Finishing Work for Sinks Shouldn't Have Been Included in Dutiable Value
The value of sink components and finishing work that either (1) wasn’t covered under the relevant antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders, or, (2) didn’t originate in China, shouldn’t have been included in the sinks’ dutiable value because the orders' language didn't specifically include them, Court of International Trade Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled April 21. However, packaging costs should have been, she said.
Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif on April 22 granted a motion to dismiss importer Pay Less’ challenge to the International Trade Commission’s affirmative critical circumstances finding regarding Burmese-origin mattresses. The importer never filed an entry of appearance in the underlying injury investigation, and it overall failed to clear the “low bar” required to establish itself as a party to the proceeding, he ruled (Pay Less Here v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 24-00152).
Plywood importer Interglobal Forest defended April 10 its attempt to have the Court of International Trade take judicial notice of three items from other proceedings: a stipulated judgment, a motion for entry of confession of judgment and a discovery response (American Pacific Plywood v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03914).
The Court of International Trade on April 16 held that it doesn't have jurisdiction under Section 1581(c) to hear claims from a group of importers that the Commerce Department failed to find a changed circumstance or open new shipper reviews in an antidumping duty investigation on Mexican tomatoes covering entries during 1995-96. Sustaining the agency's investigation results on remand, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves also held that the intervenors don't have standing to sue, since their claims aren't related to those of the other parties with standing.
The Court of International Trade on April 17 sustained the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico, which was initially opened in 1996. After the agency calculated AD margins for the seven respondents from the original 1995-96 investigation period on remand, a group of intervenors, led by NS Brands, challenged Commerce's decision not to find a changed circumstance or initiate new shipper reviews for the intervenors. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves dismissed the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, noting that they could have been brought under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, instead of under the plaintiffs' jurisdictional claim under Section 1581(c). The judge also found that the intervenors lacked standing to sue.
The Court of International Trade on April 15 denied importer Under the Weather's motion for leave to amend its complaint to add a claim regarding CBP's prior tariff treatment of its imported pop-up tent "pods." Judge Timothy Reif said the proposed amended complaint "was filed after undue delay and is futile."
In April 8 oral argument involving a large number of parties, Court of International Trade Judge Jane Restani said she thinks she knows how she’ll rule on a petitioner’s Tier 2 price benchmark question about whether Kazakh natural gas export prices are available to Russian purchasers (Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00239).