In response to two motions for judgment (see 2402020054 and 2404020054) in a case involving an anti-circumvention inquiry on Vietnamese plywood, a petitioner argued the proceeding wasn’t flawed and that untimely new information provided was properly rejected (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00144).
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.
U.S. importer CME Acquisitions argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent decision in PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S. didn't overrule the appellate court's decision in Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. U.S. regarding how the Commerce Department sets the non-selected respondents' antidumping duty rate (CME Acquisitions v. United States, CIT # 24-00032).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 15 decision made public Aug. 20 rejected the Commerce Department's determination that some of exporter Megaa Moda's home market sales weren't made "for consumption" in that market. Judge Thomas Aquilino said Commerce must "diligently examine the circumstances surrounding a transaction," and can't simply use a prior CIT decision to say that the agency can't use the trade patterns of a company's customers to find that the sales aren't "for consumption" in the home market.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 21 allowed the U.S. to serve German paper exporter Koehler through its U.S. counsel in a suit seeking over $193 million in unpaid antidumping duties and interest from the company. Judge Gary Katzmann said the court's rules allow for such service and that this type of service doesn't disturb international comity or Koehler's due process rights.
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
Exporter Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. asked the Court of International Trade to compel the Commerce Department not to make adjustments to the plywood surrogate value in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. The exporter said in an Aug. 20 brief that, after two remands, the court "has been patient with Commerce," but the agency "has now demonstrated that it has no reasonable explanation for its methodology yet sticks to its unsupported position" (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00190).
ITC Continues to Cumulate Russian, Argentinian, Mexican and Some South Korean OCTG in Injury Finding
Cumulation occurs on the date a petition is filed, not when the International Trade Commission votes, the ITC claimed Aug. 16 in opposition to a Court of International Trade ruling. It said this had been established by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Tenaris Bay City, et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00344).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 20 sent back the Commerce Department's decision in an antidumping duty review not to adjust exporter Trina Solar Co.'s U.S. price by six programs countervailed in the companion countervailing duty review. Judge Claire Kelly said Commerce failed to explain its finding that the six programs weren't export contingent.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 21 granted the government's motion to serve German paper exporter Koehler through its U.S. counsel in a suit looking to get Koehler to pay over $193 million in unpaid antidumping duties and interest. Judge Gary Katzmann said the court's Rule 4(e), which allows service on an individual in a foreign country "by other means not prohibited by international agreement," allows service through a foreign company's U.S.-located counsel. The judge added that international comity doesn't bar this type of service and that service through Koehler's U.S. counsel wouldn't strip the company of its due process rights.