The Court of International Trade erred when it dismissed a case brought by importer Rimco over alleged "excessive fines" leveled by CBP for the combination of antidumping and countervailing duty rates on steel wheels from China, Rimco argued in a Nov. 14 brief before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Trade Court Sends Back Commerce's Decision to Decline to Start Successor-in-Interest CCR in CVD Case
The Commerce Department must reconsider its decision to deny plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products' request for a successor-in-interest changed circumstances review in a countervailing duty case, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 18 opinion. In defending its decision, Commerce cited its "significant change" practice, under which it says it will not start a CCR where there is evidence of a significant change that could have affected the nature of subsidization. Judge Claire Kelly ruled that "it is unclear" why this practice applies since the successor company did not have an individually calculated rate.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Viewtech Inc. on Nov. 16 filed a notice of dismissal in 10 of its tariff classification cases at the Court of International Trade. Filed between 2008 and 2011, the cases concerned the classification of Viewtech's digital satellite receivers. CBP liquidated the entries under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8528.12.97 or 8528.71.40, though the importer claimed they should be classified under subheadings 8528.12.92 or 8528.71.20 (Viewtech Inc. v. United States, CIT #s 08-00250, 08-00252, 08-00253, 08-00254, 09-00116, 09-00146, 09-00173, 09-00419, 10-00112, 11-00008).
The U.S. wants more than 7,000 words for its reply in support of its motion for judgment in a case against surety Aegis Security Insurance Co., looking to collect on a bond due 14 years ago. Filing a consent motion for leave to exceed the word limit for its brief, the U.S. said that it wants another 3,000 words, for a total of 10,000, "given the volume and complexity of the issues involved" (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).
Plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products submitted a notice of supplemental authority in a Court of International Trade case over the Commerce Department's refusal to initiate a successor-in-interest changed circumstances review (CCR) in a countervailing duty case. In the notice, GreenFirst alerted the court to its filing of a CCR request to find that GreenFirst is the successor-in-interest to Rayonier A.M. Canada (RYAM) in a related antidumping case. After filing in the AD case, Commerce found that information submitted supports starting a successor-in-interest CCR for AD purposes (GreenFirst Forest v. U.S., CIT #22-00097).
The Commerce Department properly held and explained that antidumping duty respondent Dongkuk S&C Co.'s reported steel plate costs do not reasonably reflect the cost of making wind towers in an antidumping duty investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 17 opinion. Judge Leo Gordon also held that Commerce properly used exporter SeAH Steel Holdings Corp.'s 2018 consolidated financial statement as the basis for constructed value calculations for Dongkuk's profit and selling expenses.
The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 18 opinion sent back the Commerce Department's denial of plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products' request for a successor-in-interest changed circumstances review of the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada. GreenFirst applied for the CCR after it acquired Rayonier A.M. Canada and sought to get its non-selected companies' CVD rate of 6.32%. Commerce claimed that it did not start the CCR due to its "significant change" practice that it will not conduct the review where there is evidence of a significant change that could have affected the nature of subsidization. Judge Claire Kelly ruled that "it is unclear" why this practice applies since Rayonier did not have an individually calculated rate.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied appellant PrimeSource Building Products' motion for a stay in a case on an antidumping duty review on steel nails from Taiwan. The U.S. opposed the stay, which would have stopped litigation until the resolution of Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., on the grounds that the stay is "based on nothing but pure speculation as to" the appellant's desired outcome in Mid Continent (PrimeSource Building Products Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-2128).
The Court of International Trade has the jurisdiction to hear all claims brought by plaintiffs led by Bioparques de Occidente concerning the Commerce Department's continued antidumping duty investigation after a suspension agreement was terminated, the plaintiffs argued in a Nov. 14 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Bioparques de Occidente v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00204).