Engine manufacturing giant Cummins Inc. launched a challenge to CBP's denial of its protest claiming its turbocharger housings qualify for a specific Section 301 tariff exclusion, in a Sept. 15 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The challenge seeks to prove that Cummins' imported "housings" or "covers" that are assembled into turbochargers quality for the compressor housings exclusion laid out by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (Cummins Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00517).
The U.S. and two respondents in an antidumping duty review backed the Commerce Department's decision to drop a particular market situation determination on South Korean steel, in recently filed briefs, arguing the agency relied on what evidence it had after the Court of International Trade ruled against evidence upon which it had originally relied to make the finding (SeAH Steel Co., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00086).
The Court of International Trade sustained the remand results in two similar antidumping cases after the Commerce Department dropped a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production in the sales-below-cost test. The court issued two opinions on Sept. 17, both in cases brought by steel exporter Saha Thai Steel PIpe Public Co. which challenged the 2016-17 and 2017-18 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves issued three prior remands between the two cases, finding that the PMS adjustment was contrary to law.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade granted the Department of Justice's motion for extension of the time of service in a penalty action against Kevin Ho, the owner and director of importer Atria, in a Sept. 14 order. After being briefed by both Ho and DOJ, Judge Timothy Reif also decided not to quash service even though the U.S. served Ho's counsel with the wrong summons and complaint (United States v. Chu-Chiang “Kevin” Ho, et al., CIT #19-00038).
The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's final results of the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Taiwan, in a Sept. 14 opinion. Chief Judge Mark Barnett found that Commerce's use of mandatory respondent Unicatch Industrial Co.'s above-cost home market sales to calculate normal value was legal, the agency's decision to not include Unicatch's antidumping duty deposits in the company's freight revenues was proper, and that Commerce's move to increase Unicatch's cost of production to account for purchases from an affiliated supplier at less than market value was appropriate.
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 14 struck down two Commerce Department scope rulings that found door thresholds are not finished products and therefore within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that Commerce's contention that the door thresholds from Worldwide Door Components and Columbia Aluminum Products were not finished products is contradicted by record evidence, remanding the rulings to the agency for reconsideration.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department was wrong to extend a total adverse facts available antidumping duty finding to "all other" respondents in an AD review, Indian exporter Kisaan Die Tech Private Limited said in a Sept. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Kissan Die Tech Private Limited v. United States, CIT #21-00512). Commerce picked only one company, Chandan Steel Limited, to serve as mandatory respondent in the 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India. However, Commerce had more than 40 to choose from, Kisaan said. Nevertheless, the agency settled for just Chandan and hit it with the punitive 146.25% dumping rate after finding that the company failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. "Commerce never determined that Plaintiff nor any of the other 'all other' respondents failed to cooperate with the agency’s review to the best of their ability," Kisaan said. The plaintiff now argues that it is not affiliated with Chandan and thus should not face the consequences for its alleged failure to cooperate.
The Commerce Department's decision to continue applying adverse facts available due to the Chinese government's alleged shortcoming in its questionnaire responses during a countervailing duty investigation runs contrary to a court order from the Court of International Trade, plaintiff Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. said in a Sept. 13 filing. Commerce held that AFA was warranted, in part, because the Chinese government did not fully answer its questions on subsidy programs for synthetic yarn and caustic soda. The court ruled to the contrary, making the continued use of AFA in Commerce's remand results unsupported and contrary to law, the brief said (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #19-00047).