The Commerce Department must reconsider its final determination in an antidumping duty investigation into truck and bus tires from China, the Court of International Trade said in a Jan. 24 decision. Judge Timothy Stanceu sent the matter back to Commerce so it could reconsider its decision to deny the two groups of plaintiffs -- led by Guizhou Tyre Co. and Double Coin Holdings -- separate rate status in the investigation. The judge said that the agency's reasoning was "vague and ambiguous" as to whether its inquiry focused on the Chinese government's control of the plaintiffs' export activities.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Antidumping respondent Cheng Shin Rubber Industry Co.'s bid to indefinitely extend a preliminary injunction should be rejected by the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice said in a Jan. 18 brief. DOJ said that Cheng Shin failed to show that it will suffer immediate irreparable harm for its entries made beyond the original expiration date of the injunction -- June 30, 2022 -- and that if its entries beyond this date are at risk of being liquidated, that the exporter can just request an extension of the injunction (Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #21-00398).
The Commerce Department's decision to compare two foreign manufacturers' production processes with integrated steel mills from China was unreasonable, Bruneian company HLDS (B) Steel and Philippine company HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co. told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 24 complaint. Such a comparison -- used in a recent anti-circumvention inquiry -- was unreasonable since integrated steel mills make primary steel in many forms, not just oil country tubular goods -- the merchandise subject to the anti-circumvention inquiry, the complaint said (HLDS (B) Steel SDN BHD v. United States, CIT #21-00638).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Commerce Department did not adhere to the Court of International Trade's orders when it excluded importer Star Pipe Products' 11 ductile iron flanges from the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China, U.S. producer ASC Engineered Solutions said in a Jan. 21 brief. The court did not instruct Commerce to exclude Star Pipe's flanges but rather to "conduct a more comprehensive review," which the agency failed to do. "Rather, the redetermination simply assumes, incorrectly, that a particular result had been directed by the Court," the brief said (Star Pipe Products v. United States, CIT #17-00236).
A&A Pharmachem evaded the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China, CBP said in a determination on evasion under the Enforce and Protect Act. CBP said that A&A Pharmachem transshipped its Chinese-origin xanthan gum imports into the U.S. through India without declaring that the entries were subject to the order. CBP initiated the EAPA investigation following an allegation from domestic xanthan gum producer CP Kelco, through Greenberg Traurig lawyer Matthew Kanna (see 2106070057).
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 will not participate in the appeal over whether the law permits expedited countervailing duty reviews, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 19 letter. In the case, originally brought by the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, the Court of International Trade said that there was no legal authority for such reviews (see 2108190002). The decision was then appealed by the Canadian government, among other parties, which argued that the trade court improperly applied Chevron deference to the Commerce Department when it found that two different sections of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act didn't give Commerce the legal authority to carry out expedited reviews (see 2112280025) (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #19-00122).
Just because Section 232 tariffs are placed in Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, this doesn't make them remedial tariffs, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 14 brief. The tariffs also aren't temporary, don't count as a double remedy and can be deducted from an antidumping duty respondent's export price, the brief said (Borusan Mannesman Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2097).