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).
Each one of the Commerce Department's four findings challenged in a countervailing duty case challenge is legal and should be sustained, the U.S. argued in a Dec. 9 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government claimed Commerce's decision not to rely on respondent Marmen Energie's auditor's adjustment was reasonable; the agency reasonably found the additional depreciation for various Class 1 assets conferred a countervailable benefit to Marmen; Commerce's calculation of Marmen's benefit for a tax credit program legally did not include the income tax effects of benefits under the program for past years; and the agency reasonably said that Quebec's on-the-job tax credit program is de facto specific (Quebec v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1807).
The use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty investigation against one party based on data submitted by another party is illegal, Brazilian honey producer Supermel argued in a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The Commerce Department did not have the legal authority to ask Supermel to verify its data against information submitted by an unaffiliated beekeeper, even though Supermel's data was "in fact, reliable and verified," the brief said (Apiario Diamente Comercial Exportadora v. United States, CIT #22-00185).
The Commerce Department’s recent preliminary determination that Southeast Asian solar cells and panels are circumventing antidumping and countervailing duties (see 2212020064) left several questions unanswered, and lawyers for the Solar Energy Industries Association hope the agency will clarify these issues as the case proceeds to its final determinations, they said during a webinar Dec. 13.