Textile gloves with a plastic coating on the palm and fingers are classifiable in the tariff schedule as gloves, not as articles of plastics, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Dec. 6 opinion.
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges Alan Lourie, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham questioned both the position of the government and affected domestic producers in a Dec. 5 oral argument on whether CBP properly denied payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, on antidumping and countervailing duties under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Adee Honey Farms v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2105) (Hilex Poly Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2106).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 6 opinion sustained CBP's classification of knit gloves with a partial plastic coating under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6116.10.55, dutiable at 13.2%. Judges Kimberly Moore, Jimmie Reyna and Richard Taranto sided with the government over importer Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co., which championed subheading 3926.20.10, free of duty. Citing heading 6116's Explanatory Note, the court said this heading, which covers "[g]loves, mittens and mitts, knitted or crocheted," includes knitted gloves with non-knit components. The court rejected the importer's claims that Section XI Note 1(h) excluded the gloves from heading 6116 and that the Federal Circuit's ruling in Kalle USA v. U.S., a case concerning sausage casings, precluded classification under Section XI.
The Commerce Department misapplied the four factors used in determining whether companies are de facto controlled by a foreign government in finding exporter Guizhou Tyre was controlled by the Chinese state in the antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from China, the exporter argued. Filing its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Guizhou Tyre said that Commerce improperly used its government control analysis for firms majority owned by a state-owned enterprise in finding it failed to rebut the presumption of state control, since the exporter is only minority owned by an SOE (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2165).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 4 again ruled against Commerce's use of a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in antidumping duty cases.
Amendments to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's rules took effect Dec. 1. The court amended Forms 6a and 24, adding that the amended forms will be required for any filings made on or after Dec. 1, a court notice said. Form 24 "satisfies the Bill of Costs form requirementsa" under Federal Circuit Rule 39(b), while Form 6A "satisfies the requirement for incarcerated movants to file a supplemental form for prisoners," under CAFC Rule 24(b).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 4 opinion sustained the Court of International Trade's ruling upholding the Commerce Department's 2018 antidumping review of circular welded carbon steel pipes from Thailand. During litigation on the review, the agency removed a particular market situation adjustment it initially made to respondents Saha Thai Steel and Thai Premium Pipe's costs of production to determine normal value as part of the sales-below-cost test. Commerce dropped the PMS adjustment after the Federal Circuit's ruling in Hyundai Steel v. U.S., which made the adjustment illegal. Petitioner Wheatland Tube attempted to distinguish the present case from Hyundai Steel by claiming the PMS adjustment was a constructed value calculation. The court disagreed, saying Hyundai Steel is controlling.
The Commerce Department ignored its own framework for "linking evidentiary findings to conduct" relevant to antidumping proceedings and perverted the "rebuttable" presumption of state control," exporters Double Coin Holdings and China Manufacturers Alliance argued in their opening brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 28. The pair challenged Commerce's finding that Double Coin didn't rebut the presumption of Chinese state control in a review on off-the-road tires from China, saddling the firm with the 105.31% China-wide rate (China Manufacturers Alliance v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.