The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Court of International Trade
The United States Court of International Trade is a federal court which has national jurisdiction over civil actions regarding the customs and international trade laws of the United States. The Court was established under Article III of the Constitution by the Customs Courts Act of 1980. The Court consists of nine judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is located in New York City. The Court has jurisdiction throughout the United States and has exclusive jurisdictional authority to decide civil action pertaining to international trade against the United States or entities representing the United States.
An automobile parts exporter’s financial statements aren’t representative of exporter Your Standing International’s home market steel nail sales, Your Standing said Nov. 29 in support of its August motion for judgment (see 2408270046) (Your Standing International v. United States, CIT # 24-00055).
The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a confidential decision on Dec. 2 on the antidumping duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina. Judge Claire Kelly gave the parties until Dec. 9 to review the confidential information in the decision. Previously, the judge remanded part of Commerce's decision to initiate the investigation, holding that the agency hadn't proven that the petition had at least 50% support from the domestic industry (see 2403220033). Kelly was concerned that some U.S. producers that both make and finish OCTGs may have accidentally been counted twice. On remand, Commerce said it found no evidence of double-counting (Tenaris Bay City, et al. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00343).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 2 referred importer California Steel Industries' suit on its denied requests for Section 232 steel tariff exclusions to court-annexed mediation before Judge Leo Gordon. The action was previously referred to mediation, though the effort proved fruitless (California Steel Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00015).
The Court of International Trade has personal jurisdiction over exporter Koehler Oberkirch in the government's customs penalty suit against the exporter, since it's a successor to the company that owes nearly $200 million in unpaid antidumping duties, the U.S. said. Responding to Koehler's motion to dismiss, the U.S. said Koehler doesn't question that its allegations establish that Koehler Oberkirch's "spin-off" to Koehler Paper was "done to escape paying" the duties (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch, CIT # 24-00014).
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Dec. 3 sustained the Commerce Department's benchmark picks for two subsidy programs in the 2016-17 review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum foil from China. Judge Timothy Reif said the agency adequately explained its selection of Trade Data Monitor data for use as the benchmark in assessing respondent Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co.'s receipt of aluminum plate, sheet and strip, and the selection of a 2010 Coldwell Banker Richard Ellis report using Thai data for the benchmark for Zhongji's land use rights program. On the land use rights program, Reif accepted Commerce's practice of using data contemporaneous with the receipt of the benefit and not with the review period.
Foreign-trade zone goods become "importations" for duty drawback purposes when they are admitted into an FTZ, rather than when they are entered for consumption into the U.S., the government told the Court of International Trade on Nov. 27, urging it to dismiss a lawsuit from importer King Maker Marketing challenging the rejection of its duty drawback claims. As a result, King Maker's drawback claims are untimely, since they were brought over five years since the underlying cigarette entries were admitted into the FTZ, the government said (King Maker Marketing v. United States, CIT # 24-00134).
Exporter Chandan Steel Limited will appeal a decision from the Court of International Trade sustaining the 145.25% total adverse facts available rate set against the exporter in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on steel flanges from India (see 2312110043). The Commerce Department said Chandan repeatedly misreported its foreign sales information and the costs of production for those foreign sales. The court upheld the use of AFA to address these misrepresentations, noting that Chandan's responses also had additional deficiencies related to its reporting of gross unit price, quantity discounts, other discounts and duty refunds. The trade court then rejected Chandan Steel's motion for reconsideration of the decision (see 2410030013) (Chandan Steel Limited v. United States, CIT # 21-00540).
Importer PowerTec Solutions filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 25 seeking refunds of Section 301 duties paid on its power supplies and cables (PowerTecSolutions International v. United States, CIT # 22-00322).
The Court of International Trade granted an unopposed motion for partial final judgment Nov. 26, sustaining the antidumping duty rate calculated for exporter Kenda Rubber (China) Co. in the 2016-17 review of the AD order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. Judge Mark Barnett said the rate is "unchallenged and otherwise appears supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law" (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).