A U.S. petitioner on March 18 again argued that a Dutch preserved mushrooms exporter “significantly impeded” a Commerce Department antidumping duty investigation and that the agency shouldn't have granted the exporter a de minimis AD rate (Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00133).
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed a lawsuit from clothing company Smart Apparel (U.S.) that accused Nordstrom of breaching a contract when it canceled orders from Smart Apparel that were suspected of being made with forced labor (Smart Apparel (U.S.) v. Nordstrom, W.D. Wash. # 23-01754).
The D.C. U.S. District Court on March 11 dismissed a lawsuit from a senior Democratic Republic of Congo elections official challenging his sanctions designation, saying the listing wasn't "arbitrary or capricious" and that due process laws weren't violated.
CBP announced an Enforce and Protect Act investigation and said it has reasonable suspicion that Kings Marble and Granite, Musa Stone Import, and KMG Marble and Granite evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on quartz surface products from China. The agency said this finding made the enactment of interim measures necessary.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated March 15-18 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):
Christopher Curran, litigation partner at White & Case, has joined a scope case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on behalf of Japanese exporter Sigma Corp., according to a March 18 order from the appellate court. The suit was originally brought by manufacturer Vandewater International on whether its steel branch outlets fall within the scope of the antidumping duty order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China (see 2306020065). Curran joins trade lawyers Lucius Lau, Ron Kendler and Walter Spak in representing Sigma (Vandewater International v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).
An exporter argued March 6 to the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department failed to justify allocating one of the exporter’s expenses across the entire period of review instead of on a more specific monthly basis. The department is required to use an allocation method that is as specific as possible, it said (Sahamitr Pressure Container PLC v. U.S., CIT # 22-0107).
Certain types of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe exported from the U.S. to Mexico for reprocessing and subsequent re-importation are not covered by the antidumping duty order on Mexican standard pipe, the Commerce Department said in a March 13 scope ruling. The products’ country of origin is the U.S., not Mexico, the department said.
The Court of International Trade will ask parties in an oral argument in Section 1581(i) action set for March 20 if antidumping and countervailing duties can ever violate the 8th Amendment as an excessive fine if they are legally calculated. Issuing questions ahead of the argument, Judge Mark Barnett also asked about when exactly importer Greentech Energy Solutions was injured when its solar cell entries were assessed AD/CVD (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated March 12 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):