Although attorneys were expecting further guidance from the Court of International Trade over how best to claim "first sale" valuation with the CBP, they got even more questions about how the valuation tactic will be applied, Kevin Leonard, international trade lawyer at Grunfeld Desiderio, said at a Jan. 26 webinar hosted by the U.S. Fashion Industry Association. Speaking about CIT's March decision in Meyer Corp. v. U.S., Leonard discussed what he saw as the opinion's impacts and flaws, including a failure to look at the "second sale" price in the case and the addition of a new requirement for parties looking to claim first sale.
The Commerce Department can use adverse facts available in a countervailing duty review due to the Chinese government's failure provide information about how electricity processes and costs vary among its provinces, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Jan. 28 opinion. The opinion, which upheld a Court of International Trade ruling, concerns the fourth administrative review of the CVD order on solar cells from China, in which Commerce identified electricity price variations across different provinces, resulting in a finding of the provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration.
Erik Autor, former president of the National Association of Foreign-Trade Zones, has joined customs and trade law firm Barlow & Co. as of counsel, he announced on LinkedIn. Autor's background includes a clerkship at the Court of International Trade and working at Skadden Arps as a lawyer in its international trade practice group. He will assist companies with their customs and trade matters, the firm said.
In-person oral argument in the Section 301 cases is scheduled for Feb. 1 at 10 a.m. in the Ceremonial Courtroom of the U.S. Court of International Trade, the court confirmed in a Jan. 25 amended courthouse activities report. A previously posted report dated Jan. 24 had the Section 301 oral argument missing from the schedule. Mindful of the enormous attention the litigation has generated through the thousands of cases filed, the court said in a Nov. 12 scheduling order that it “anticipates that in-person attendance will be limited” but that a remote audio feed would be provided. All the cases seek to have the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports vacated and the paid duties refunded with interest.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department dropped its finding that a particular market situation existed for the sale of oil country tubular goods in South Korea, lowering the dumping rate for respondent SeAH Steel Corp. from 3.96% to zero percent. Submitting this change to the Court of International Trade via Jan. 24 remand results, Commerce said that although it disagrees with the court that its PMS position isn't backed by enough evidence, it's making the change to comply with court orders (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT #20-00150).
The lack of access to business confidential information (BCI) in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion investigation violated wire hanger importer Leco Supply's due process rights, the importer told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 24 brief. Responding to CBP's remand results in which it took another look at its initial finding of evasion under the Enforce and Protect Act, Leco said its lack of access to confidential information and the withholding of information not entitled to confidentiality at the administrative level "clearly risked erroneous deviation of Leco's private interests," the brief said. An administrative protective order issued during EAPA investigations would end this concern, the importer told the trade court (Leco Supply v. U.S., CIT #21-00136).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Home Depot U.S.A. launched a challenge at the Court of International Trade over President Donald Trump's expansion of the Section 232 tariffs onto steel and aluminum "derivative" products, such as steel nails. Building on the early success of the PrimeSource Building Products Inc. v. U.S. case -- currently under appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit -- Home Depot said that the action to impose tariffs on the derivative products violated procedural time limits in the Section 232 statute (Home Depot USA v. United States, CIT #22-00014). In April 2021, CIT struck down the Section 232 duties on derivative goods, finding the president violated his statutory authority (see 2104050049).
Steel wheel importer Rimco seeks relief at the Court of International Trade over the Commerce Department's all-others rate in a countervailing duty review by asking the court to order Commerce not to do something that it did not do in the first place, defendant-intervenor Dexstar Wheels said in a Jan. 24 brief. Asking the trade court to toss the case, Dexstar said that Rimco failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted since Commerce did not actually set an all-others rate in the review (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00588).