Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann heard oral arguments April 1 in an Australian hot-rolled steel exporter’s challenge of an International Trade Commission's decision in an injury investigation to cumulate that exporter’s products with merchandise from other countries. The exporter argues that it also has invested $2.5 million into a U.S. manufacturing plant, so it has no incentive to injure its own domestic market (BlueScope Steel v. U.S., CIT # 22-00353).
Countervailing duty petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition opened its case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against the Commerce Department's decision on remand finding that shipbuilding company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic, an affiliate of respondent Kaptan Demir, is not Kaptan's cross-owned input supplier. Filing an opening brief on April 2, the petitioner said that Commerce originally got it right in cross-attributing Nur's subsidies to Kaptan in the 2018 CVD review on rebar from Turkey (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1431).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
NEW YORK -- In a marathon four-and-a-half hour oral argument session last week, Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden sharply questioned the International Trade Commission's redaction process in an injury proceeding on phosphate fertilizers (OCP v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00219).
CBP announced a new Enforce and Protect Act investigation, saying it has reasonable suspicion that VY Industries, a Canada-based company and U.S. distributor, evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wire coated coil nails from China. The agency said this finding made the enactment of interim measures necessary.
Switzerland-based international commodities trading firm Trafigura Beheer will pay over $126 million after pleading guilty to violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by bribing Brazilian government officials to obtain business with state-owned oil company Petrobras, DOJ announced.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia earlier this month granted the U.S. motion for forfeiture of about $17 million from Iraqi airline Al-Naser Airlines, representing the amount of laundered payments involved in the company's scheme to evade export controls and sanctions by "illicitly procuring U.S.-origin aircraft for the benefit of an Iranian airline [Mahan Air]." The court said that the government "fulfilled its notice obligations" prior to a forfeiture and that the complaint against the airline's funds contains verified allegations that "establish the facts necessary to support a civil forfeiture" (U.S. v. $3,435,935 of Funds From Al-Naser Airlines, D.D.C. # 15-01687).
The U.S. filed a cross-motion for summary judgment March 25 in a case contesting CBP’s assessment of antidumping duties on an importer’s entries of a product that had been exempted from an AD order (see 2401080040). In the cross-motion, the government said that the liquidation had gone ahead because the importer hadn't filed the proper entry documentation (Kiswire Inc. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #22-00181).
A World Trade Organization dispute panel found that certain elements of Australian antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings on wind towers, deep drawn stainless steel sinks and railway wheels from China violate WTO commitments. Issuing its findings March 26, the panel recommended that Australia bring its measures into conformity with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.
Three companies challenging the International Trade Commission's injury finding on Mexican and Chinese rail couplers responded to the ITC's and the petitioner's opposition to their motion to consolidate their cases, arguing that the "result is to sandbag Plaintiffs." Dubbing the ITC's opposition to the consolidation a "highly unusual move," the three companies -- Amsted Rail Co., Wabtec Corp. and Strato -- said that the opposition is "procedurally dubious" and "entirely meritless" (Amsted Rail Ind. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00268; Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00157; Strato v. United States, CIT # 23-00158).