The Commerce Department "under protest" notified an Indonesian polyester textured yarn exporter of specific deficiencies in a questionnaire response it provided and gave it the chance to address them. As a result, the department reduced the exporter’s dumping margin from 26.07% to 9.20% (PT. Asia Pacific Fibers v. United States, CIT # 22-00007).
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.
Importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 claiming CBP failed to provide the company with a "statement of reasons" for the denial of its protest concerning its passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. The company said protest denial was improper because it centered on a message from the Commerce Department, which the importer wasn't given access to (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. U.S., CIT # 24-00149).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 denied exporter Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Isihsal Endustrisi's motions to intervene in an antidumping suit and secure an injunction on its entries because its entries have "already been liquidated." Judge Jane Restani said that because the company failed to secure an injunction from the court prior to the liquidation of its entries, the court can't provide the relief the company seeks.
Three wildlife advocacy groups took to the Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 to contest the collective failure of the Commerce, Treasury and Homeland Security departments and the National Marine Fisheries Service to ban fish or fish products exported from fisheries that don't meet U.S. bycatch standards under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Gina Raimondo, CIT # 24-00148).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 said anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) doesn't have standing to challenge CBP's inaction in responding to a petition to ban cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire. Judge Claire Kelly said IRAdvocates failed to show that CBP's inaction "has harmed a core business or diminished any asset."
The U.S. said Aug. 6 that pistol maker Glock’s motion to compel discovery improperly required it to admit to "pure legal conclusions" and asked for irrelevant and disproportionate document production (Glock v. U.S., CIT # 23-00046).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 denied exporter Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi's motions to intervene in an antidumping case and secure an injunction on its entries. Judge Jane Restani said the case presents a "common situation," whereby the court can't provide Habas the relief it seeks because its entries have liquidated, despite the company's intent to protest the liquidation.
A petitioner supported the Commerce Department’s decision, on remand, to use Brazilian rather than Mexican labor cost data in its calculation of the antidumping duty margins for two exporters of steel kegs from China (see 2407240018) (New American Keg v. U.S., CIT # 20-00008).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 5 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to lower the countervailing duty subsidy rate for exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. related to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, from 10.54% to 0.87%. The result is a final, recalculated 22.2% total subsidy rate for Yama in the 2017 administrative review of the CVD order on narrow woven ribbons from China.
After its bid for a preliminary injunction was denied by Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly (see 2407260045), a customs broker fought Aug. 5 against a motion to dismiss its case, saying its complaint was ripe for litigation because CBP had already made the decision to deny its reinstatement to the agency's Entry Type 86 pilot (Seko Customs Brokerage v. United States, CIT # 24-00097).