The government's right to collect on a bond against a surety doesn't accrue until the surety breaches the bond, the Department of Justice said in a Feb. 28 motion for judgment in a case seeking to collect on a bond that covers imports entered during 2002-2006. Since the terms of the bond say that the surety must pay "as demanded by CBP," the statute of limitations on which to file suit to collect payment runs from when CBP demands payment, the brief said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).
The Commerce Department stuck by its decision to hit affiliated antidumping respondents Ghigi 1870 and Pasta Zara with an adverse inference over their U.S. payment dates in Feb. 28 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. However, the agency dropped the adverse inference on the U.S. sales for which Commerce verified the correct date. The result, if sustained, is a weighted-average dumping margin of 91.74% for Ghigi/Zara (Ghigi 1870 S.P.A. v. United States, CIT #20-00023).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade, one filed by Calgon Carbon and the other by Carbon Activated Tianjin, argue that the Commerce Department picked the wrong surrogate data in a recent administrative review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China (Calgon Carbon Corporation v. U.S., CIT #22-00025) (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00017).
South Korean manufacturer Hyundai Steel Co. launched a challenge at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea. In the review, Commerce said that Hyundai received a countervailable benefit through the issuance of carbon emissions permits for less than adequate remuneration (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT #22-00029).
CBP wrongly classified animal antibiotic chlortetracycline concentrate feed grade powder (CTC concentrate), resulting in the imposition of Section 301 China tariffs on the imports, Zoetis Services said in a Feb. 24 complaint at the Court of International Trade. While CBP classified the powder as a feed preparation, Zeotis says it should have classified it has a medicament (Zoetis Services LLC v. U.S., CIT #22-00056).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security granted importer CPW America Co.'s bid for exclusions from paying Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs following a remand order from the Court of International Trade. In a Feb. 23 submission, BIS said that there was not sufficient domestic U.S. capacity of line pipe to justify rejecting CPW's exclusion requests (CPW America Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00335).
Neither importer Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. nor the U.S. succeeded in persuading the Court of International Trade that their side was right in a tiff over the country of origin for shipments of uninterruptible power supplies and a surge voltage protector. Judge Leo Gordon, in a Feb. 24 order, denied both parties' motions for judgment, ordering the litigants to pick dates on which to set up a trial.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: