A Canadian softwood lumber producer cannot claim to be a successor-in-interest to another lumber company still in existence, the government argued in a Sept. 6 brief at the Court of International Trade (GreenFirst Forest Products, v. United States, CIT # 22-00097)
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 8 order upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a scope case on the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China originally brought by Vandewater International. Following an initial decision from Judge Leo Gordon, Commerce continued to find that Vandewater's steel branch outlets used in fire protection systems fall under the scope of the AD order using an analysis of the (k)(2) criteria. In the newest opinion, Gordon said despite the plaintiffs' arguments that show the record could back a finding that the outlets are excluded from the order, the court cannot find that Commerce acted unreasonably in its conclusion using the (k)(2) factors.
Antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube Co. will appeal an August Court of International Trade ruling that found that the Commerce Department properly excluded dual-stenciled pipe from the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, according to the Sept. 2 notice of appeal. The petitioner will take its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. At CIT, Judge Stephen Vaden ruled that no line pipe was made in Thailand when the original AD investigation was conducted almost 40 years ago and that the International Trade Commission made no harm finding for line or dual-stenciled pipe from Thailand (see 2208260024) (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00133).
The Court of International Trade should not grant importer Greenlight Organic's and Parambir Singh Aulakh's motion for a certification of an order for an interlocutory appeal in a customs fraud case since the court's decision did not emit a "controlling question of law" to be appealed, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 1 reply brief. The court's opinion denied a motion for judgment since facts were still in dispute, precluding the interlocutory appeal, the U.S. said (United States v. Parambir Singh "Sonny" Aulakh, CIT #17-00031).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The U.S. cannot ignore commercial reality when arguing against the fact that importer Bral Corporation contracted for defect-free merchandise, Bral argued in a Sept. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Bral is seeking to establish a valid claim for an allowance -- a move the U.S. contests by arguing that the importer failed to produce any documents to detail the quantity, sizes or specifications of its imported plywood. Bral said that while this may be true, it's clear from other evidence that Bral developed the specifications for the imports over a significant period that led to the import of its plywood products (Bral Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-00154).
Solaiyappan Ramanathan, a permanent resident of Singapore, was ordered to pay a $558,000 fine by the Singapore State Courts for making false statements when applying for Preferential Certificates of Origin for goods his company exported, Singapore Customs announced Aug. 31. Solaiyappan is the former director of Feccuni Singapore Pte. and sole owner of Shakambri Overseas -- companies set up to import and export scrap metals and other metal products from local and overseas suppliers.
The Commerce Department erred when it continued to rely on adverse facts available despite a remand order invalidating the agency’s original reasoning for the AFA rate, Cabinets To Go (CTG), a U.S. retail chain, said in its Aug. 29 comments filed to the Court of International Trade. CTG intervened in the challenge to a final determination from Commerce’s antidumping duty investigation on wooden cabinets and vanities from China (Dalian Meisen Woodworking v. U.S., CIT # 20-00109) because the calculated rates of its own suppliers were based on AFA rates for Meisen.
Antidumping duty respondent Nagase & Co's oversight in submitting information to the Commerce Department leading to a "patently erroneous assessment rate," does not justify Commerce shirking its responsibility to provide remedial fairness, Nagase argued in an Aug. 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. While Nagase admits to its error, the respondent argued that Commerce still has an obligation to correct the mistake now that the agency knows of its existence (Nagase & Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Aug. 30 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):