Lumber exporter Fontaine asked the Court of International Trade to order the Commerce Department to issue a Timken notice "setting Fontaine's cash deposit rate at 0.00%," reiterating the agency's intent to exclude the company from the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada and directing CBP to refund Fontaine's CVD cash deposits (Fontaine v. United States, CIT # 19-00154).
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
Exporter Fuzhou Hengli Paper Co. is contesting a number of decisions the Commerce Department made during an antidumping duty investigation on paper plates from China, including the agency's surrogate selection, its finding of critical circumstances, its valuation of Fuzhou Hengli’s factors of production and its assignment of total adverse facts available to the exporter in (Fuzhou Hengli Paper Co. v. U.S., CIT # 25-00064).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit questioned both exporters Guizhou Tyre Co. and Aeolus Tyre Co. and the U.S. government during oral argument on the exporters' challenge to the Commerce Department's finding that Guizhou Tyre and Aeolus didn't show independence from Chinese state control in the seventh review of the antidumping duty order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from China (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #s 23-2163, -2165).
The Court of International Trade on April 10 sent back the Commerce Department's scope ruling excluding calcium glycinate from the scope of the antidumping duty orders on glycine from India, Japan and Thailand and the countervailing duty orders on glycine from India and China. Judge Joseph Laroski said Commerce acted "unreasonably" by failing to analyze whether the glycinate is a form of crude or technical glycine, notwithstanding the agency's finding that the glycinate is a precursor of dried crystaline glycine. Laroski also said the agency acted "unreasonably" in failing to consider information in the scope ruling application and an International Trade Commission report undermining its conclusion.
The Court of International Trade on April 8 set aside the dismissal of a customs suit brought by Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, which was dropped for lack of prosecution. Judge Mark Barnett re-added the case to the Customs Case Management Calendar after the importer said it overlooked the deadline in the case to remain on the calendar due to a "calendaring mistake." Berger said no material delay stems from this mistake and that the U.S. didn't oppose re-adding the case to the calendar. Berger's case concerns whether coated fabric imports were properly subject to antidumping duties (see 2303150073) (Printing Textiles v. United States, CIT # 23-00062).
Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) filed three reply briefs in a trio of related cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, all of which are looking to get the International Trade Commission to account for litigation excluding respondent Colakoglu from the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Turkey in its assessment of whether the U.S. industry was injured (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, Fed. Cir. #s 24-2242, -2243, -2249).
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.
The Court of International Trade on April 8 rejected Georgia woman Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois' challenge to four questions on the October 2021 customs broker license exam. Judge Lisa Wang held that for three of the questions, Stoute-Francois formulated her own "factual scenarios" in arguing that there wasn't enough information to select the correct answer. For the remaining question, Wang said CBP's correct answer choice was backed by substantial evidence.
Counsel for Simplified, a small business that became the first to challenge in court the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, told us that he believes jurisdiction to be proper in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and not the Court of International Trade. Andrew Morris of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the conservative advocacy group bringing the case, said jurisdiction is not reserved for the trade court, since IEEPA is not a statute that authorizes tariffs.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade: