Country of origin cases

The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:

The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:

The United States and plywood importer Richmond International Forest Products settled their 2021 case in the Court of International Trade Jan. 16. The parties agreed in a motion for stipulated judgment that the exporter’s entries of Chinese-origin plywood were subject to antidumping, countervailing and Section 301 duties. Its Cambodia-origin plywood, however, was not subject to any of the three (Richmond International Forest Products v. United States, CIT #s 21-00063, -00318, -00319).

The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:

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

In a complaint filed Jan. 15, steel wire exporter Tree Island said CBP erroneously assessed Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs on 11 of its entries (Tree Island Industries v. United States, CIT # 25-00019).

The Commerce Department defended its finding that currency undervaluation in Vietnam is specific to the traded goods sector, submitting remand results to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 15. The agency addressed various points the trade court sent back for further explanation, including Commerce's statutory authority for its specificity finding and the information the agency found missing from the record as its basis for using facts available (Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00397).

The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:

The United States on Jan. 13 joined plaintiff Elysium Tile in supporting the Commerce Department’s redetermination on remand. Elysium said in its own comments that it was satisfied with Commerce’s new report of an ex parte meeting held with its competitor during a scope ruling proceeding (see 2412030060) (Elysium Tiles v. United States, CIT # 23-00041).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last week heard oral argument on whether the Commerce Department erred in using adverse facts available against exporter Tau-Ken Temir in a countervailing duty review due to the company's failure to meet filing deadlines. Judges Todd Hughes, Sharon Prost and Timothy Dyk sharply questioned counsel for both Tau-Ken Temir and the government regarding whether the exporter took best efforts to meet filing deadlines and whether the government acted reasonably in rejecting the submission that was filed two hours late (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).