Court of International Trade activity

American steel giant U.S. Steel Corp. is seeking a stay in Russia-based steel company NLMK Pennsylvania's challenge to the Commerce Department's Section 232 exclusion denials for its steel entries until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rules on whether U.S. Steel can intervene in related cases. In its Oct. 27 motion at the Court of International Trade, U.S. Steel argued that "it is vital" for it to be able to intervene in the case and "represent its interests in the continued imposition of the Section 232 tariffs -- interests that will not be adequately represented by Defendant in this action" (NLMK Pennsylvania, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00507).

Importer Sakar International Inc. filed four complaints at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 28 to challenge the classification of its smartphone and tablet covers. Made predominantly of plastic or silicone, the covers were classified by CBP under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 4202.92.45, 4202.92.90 or 4202.99.90, dutiable at either 17.6% or 20%.

The Commerce Department did not reasonably find that Chinese exporter Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. failed to rebut the presumption of de facto government control, barring the company from receiving a separate antidumping rate, the exporter argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Oct. 26 opening brief. Contesting the Court of International Trade's June ruling upholding Commerce's position that ZMC did not rebut this presumption, ZMC argued that Commerce was unwilling to address arguments presented by it that explained that it wasn't possible for the Chinese government to control ZMC through the labor union that owns most of its shares. This established an "irrebuttable presumption that cannot be rebutted by any factual or legal arguments," contrary to law, the brief said.

The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Oct. 28 on AD/CV duty proceedings:

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department's failure to calculate a dumping margin for antidumping review participant Chandan Steel Ltd. and instead base the rate on adverse facts available runs contrary to the law, Chandan argued in an Oct. 23 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The exporter is challenging the final results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India, covering 2018-19 entries. Chandan said it has standing as a "party to the underlying proceeding," and that the final results should be remanded so Commerce can give Chandan a rate based on its own information (Chandan Steel Limited v. United States, CIT #21-00540).

Solar cell exporter Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., along with JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co. and JingAo Solar Co., kicked off their challenge to the final results of the seventh administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystaline silicone photovoltaic cells from China in an Oct. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade. JA Solar received the all-others CVD rate, which totaled 19.28%. The companies are challenging the Commerce Department's reliance on adverse facts available related to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program due to Commerce's failure to verify non-use of the program by the respondents' U.S. customers (Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00548).

Importer DSM Nutritional Products, Inc. filed six complaints at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 27 seeking to secure its preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for its beta-carotene with stabilizers and/or anti-caking agent imports. American International Chemical also filed an identical complaint in its case seeking the same outcome. All six cases are led by Robert Seely of Grunfeld Desiderio.

With too many small packages to inspect, and Instagram and other social media influencers promoting knockoffs, fashion brands are dealing with a challenging environment. But panelists on a Crowell & Moring webinar Oct. 26 called "The Year of the Knockoff" found some reason for hope.

The Commerce Department's simple average of the de minimis and the adverse facts available China-wide rates to derive the all-others rate in an antidumping case did not reasonably reflect the potential dumping margin of the separate rate respondents, PrimeSource Building Products argued in an Oct. 18 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The AFA negates the presumption that mandatory respondents' rates reflect the separate rate respondents, and prior reviews show that cooperating separate respondents' rates are lower than firms subject to AFA, the brief argued (PrimeSource Building Products, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03911).