Court of International Trade

A group of 43 U.S. softwood lumber producers not belonging to the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports sued at the Court of International Trade for a share of the $500 million in export charges collected by Canada and distributed to Coalition members under the Softwood Lumber Agreement of October 12, 2006 (the 2006 SLA). However, the CIT declined to hear the case, claiming it did not have jurisdiction because the U.S. Trade Representative had entered into the SLA under the legal authority of a different section of the Trade Act of 1974 than the one that gives the CIT jurisdiction (section 2171, rather than the CIT’s section 2411). However, tracing the history of the softwood lumber dispute since 1986, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the CIT and ruled that the 2006 SLA does indeed fall within the CIT’s statutory jurisdiction. While allowing that a different argument, not yet adjudicated, might still succeed in removing jurisdiction, the CAFC ordered the CIT to hear the case. (Decision 2010-1389, decided 06/28/11)

In the third new shipper review of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam (covering the period August 1, 2007 through January 31, 2008 and producers Hiep Thanh Seafood Joint Stock Company and Asia Commerce Fisheries Joint Stock Company), the International Trade Administration determined that sales to a Mexican customer of Hiep Thanh stayed in the U.S. and should be counted as U.S. sales. The Mexican customer had trans-shipped some, but not all, of its purchases to Mexico, but Hiep Thanh claimed no knowledge of the U.S. destination. The Court of International Trade faulted the ITA for “too many internal inconsistencies and unexplained conclusions,” and in a new remand, it again ordered the agency to summarize the sales more clearly, and suggested the ITA provide an interpretation for the phrase “exportation.” (Slip Op. 11-74, dated 06/23/11)

Italian producer/exporter Schaeffler Italia S.R.L. (with Schaeffler Group USA Inc.) failed at the Court of International Trade in an attempt to overturn the final results of the May 2007 -- April 2008 AD administrative review of ball bearings from Italy, in which the International Trade Administration assigned it a 15.10% AD duty rate based solely on the margin results of SKF Industrie S.p.A./Somecat S.p.A, the only other respondent in the review.

The Court of International Trade has ruled in CBB Group, Inc., v. U.S., that its consideration of cases involving "deemed exclusions" and its ability to order relief, if warranted, is not precluded by CBP's issuance of a Seizure Notice (as it was issued after the case was brought to court) or by the prospect that adjudication of claims will involve the application of copyright law.

Domestic and foreign producers both contested the June 2007 - May 2008 AD administrative review results for silicon metal from China. U.S. producer Globe Metallurgical Inc. argued that the International Trade Administration should: 1) reduce U.S. prices in the dumping margin calculation to account for export and value added taxes in China; 2) use invoice dates, not entry dates, to define U.S. sales, and 3) use coking rather than non-coking coal values in input costs. Chinese producers Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd. and Jiangxi Gangyuan Silicon Industry Company, Ltd. argued that the ITA should not use an allegedly distressed or “sick” Indian surrogate company in the calculation of overhead, profit and S, G & A expense ratios, or should at least recalculate that company’s ratios to reflect an asset sale and miscellaneous income. The Court of International Trade remanded only this last issue, the surrogate company’s income and expense calculations, for further explanation, and upheld all the other contested aspects of the review.

The Court of International Trade ruled in CBB Group, Inc. v. U.S. that U.S. Customs and Border Protection cannot take action to dispose of imports it found to be piratical copies that infringe a registered copyright while the case is pending, as its Seizure Notice was issued after the importer’s case was brought and the court’s jurisdiction had attached. The importer is challenging CBP’s alleged exclusion of its plush toys from entry and CBP’s deemed denial of its protest of that event.

The Court of International Trade has ruled¹ that U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not err in denying Shell's 1997 protests seeking drawback of Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) and Environmental Tax (ET) payments associated with certain petroleum products that it imported and substitute petroleum derivatives it exported in 1993 and 1994. The CIT agreed with CBP that Shell is not entitled to drawback as its protests were untimely.

In the antidumping duty administrative review of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India for the period December 2005 through November 2006, the International Trade Administration granted an adjustment to U.S. price to Indian producer Essar Steel Limited for import duties which the company claimed were waived under an Indian Government program to encourage exports. However, U.S. producers United States Steel Corporation and Nucor Corporation argued to the Court of International Trade that Essar had failed to prove that it had qualified for the rebate. Conceding it had made erroneous assumptions, the ITA requested a voluntary remand to reconsider the duty drawback adjustment, and the CIT issued remand instructions accordingly. (Slip Op 11-66, dated 06/14/11)

The following are details of a June 16, 2011 decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (here) that overturned a lower court ruling and arguments by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on the classification of certain “CamelBak” back-mounted packs. CAFC agreed with Camelbak that its packs are made up of two different components and are "composite goods" that should be classified by the essential character test, because the two applicable subheadings refer to only part of the subject articles.

The International Trade Administration has announced that it is revising the interim¹ methodology it has been using to value the cost of labor in non-market economy (NME) countries in antidumping proceedings to use a single surrogate-country approach based on different labor cost data.