The Court of International Trade in a pair of Dec. 16 opinions upheld the Commerce Department's decisions to exclude importers Worldwide Door Components' and Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. After previously remanding the decision for not being submitted in a form that was judicially reviewable, Judge Timothy Stanceu said that this time around the agency has made a scope decision "in a form the court is able to sustain."
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 ruled that the Commerce Department improperly excluded certain solar cell sales from antidumping respondent Inventec Solar Energy Corp.'s (ISEC's) dumping margin based on its finding that ISEC did not have any actual or constructive knowledge that its goods would ultimately end up in the United States. Judge Leo Gordon said that given "the totality of the record, the court cannot sustain as reasonable" the finding that ISEC did not have actual knowledge of the solar cells' destination.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP's EAPA determination that Blue Pipe Steel Center evaded an antidumping duty order was incorrect because the Commerce Department has since ruled the imported line pipe outside the scope of the order, Blue Pipe said in a Dec. 14 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 21-00081).
A recent Court of International Trade decision in Goodluck India v. U.S. is relevant in a case on the Commerce Department's continued antidumping duty investigation on tomatoes from Mexico conducted after a suspension agreement was terminated, plaintiffs in another case, led by Bioparques de Occidente, claimed in a Dec. 14 notice of supplemental authority. In Goodluck, the trade court said that the U.S. cannot dismiss an alternatively pleaded ground of jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (see 2212010024). Bioparques' case presents a similar scenario, the brief said (Bioparques de Occidente v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00204).
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative stuck by its decision not to reinstate a Section 301 China tariff exclusion for drinking water cooler products, the agency said in Dec. 14 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. USTR said that while the availability of these goods from places outside of China is limited, the record shows that sources outside of China have picked up since 2018 with third-country imports growing "significantly in the first six months after the exclusion expired." While these sources, along with domestic production, fail to meet domestic demand, the record does not show that the additional duties are "impacting or resulting in severe economic harm to U.S. companies or other interests" (DS Services of America v. United States, CIT #22-00157).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 15 dismissed a case seeking the release of goods excluded over forced labor concerns without plaintiff Virtus Nutrition's proposed condition that CBP allow the goods to be reexported. Judge Timothy Reif said the temporary storage agreement under which the goods are currently being held does not give a basis to include the proposed stipulation. Virtus "retains recourse" to address its concern that CBP can seize the goods rather than allow their exportation, Reif said.
The Court of International Trade for the second time upheld the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in a countervailing duty case based on the Chinese government's failure to submit information about the Export Buyer's Credit Program. Judge Timothy Reif in a Dec. 8 opinion made public Dec. 16 said information about participating banks was vital enough to Commerce's efforts to verify non-use of the program that the refusal to provide the information justified the use of AFA. The court differentiated the case from another countervailing duty proceeding in which Commerce verified non-use without the requested information, finding in the other case the agency had non-use certifications from the respondent's U.S. customers -- something they did not have in the present case.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Eight models of GoPro Hero camera housings are properly classified as camera cases under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 4202 and not parts, the government said in a Dec. 9 motion at the Court of International Trade. The brief opposed GoPro's Aug. 5 motion for summary judgment, in which the company argued the housings were duty-free parts under heading 8529 because the cameras cannot fulfill their primary hands-free function without them (see 2208080041). DOJ has asked the court to deny GoPro's motion and grant its own, which would dismiss the case (GoPro v. United States, CIT #20-00176).