The Court of International Trade on Dec. 5 let the Commerce Department add an analysis memorandum from a previous antidumping proceeding to the administrative record of an anti-circumvention proceeding on Vietnamese circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe. Judge Stephen Vaden dubbed the spat as "pedantic," and said the memo should be part of the record because it was referenced by both Commerce and respondent SeAH Steel VINA Corp.
Court of International Trade activity
Mexican tomato exporter NS Brands said Dec. 3 that the Commerce Department needed to consider the “prejudice to companies now in existence” that resulted from resuming an antidumping duty investigation from 1996 with the same respondents (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00204).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 4 granted importer Incase Design Corp.'s voluntarily dismissal of its suit on the classification of its iPad and iPhone cases. Incase brought the suit in 2016 to contest CBP's classification of the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 3926.10.00, dutiable at 5.3%, and 3926.90.99, dutiable at 5.3%. The company said the goods should have been classified under subheading 4820.30.00, free of duty, or subheading 8473.30.51, free of duty (Incase Design Corp. v. United States, CIT # 16-00181).
Anti-forced labor group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reject the government's request for a two-month delay in filing a reply brief in the group's suit seeking CBP to respond to a withhold release order petition to ban cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire. IRAdvocates claimed that every "major delay in CBP doing its statutory duty to ban the importation of cocoa harvested by child slaves condemns thousands of children to a continuation of the horrible condition they must endure" (International Rights Advocates v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-2316).
The Commerce Department properly picked the benchmark data for two subsidy programs received by respondent Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials in the 2017-18 review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum foil from China, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Dec. 3.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department improperly used a period of review-wide allocation methodology for exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container's certification expenses, Sahamitr argued in its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The company said it followed Commerce's instructions throughout the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on steel propane cylinders from Thailand only for the agency to find that its methodology to be "distortive" (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2043).
The International Trade Commission regulation requiring a party to file an entry of appearance in order to establish standing to sue a commission decision before the Court of International Trade is lawful and in line with the relevant statute, the U.S. said. Replying to importer Pay Less Here's bid to keep its case on the ITC's critical circumstances determination on mattresses from Burma alive, the government said Pay Less doesn't have standing since it failed to file an entry of appearance (Pay Less Here v. United States, CIT # 24-00152).
Foreign-trade zone goods become "importations" for duty drawback purposes when they are admitted into an FTZ, rather than when they are entered for consumption into the U.S., the government told the Court of International Trade on Nov. 27, urging it to dismiss a lawsuit from importer King Maker Marketing challenging the rejection of its duty drawback claims. As a result, King Maker's drawback claims are untimely, since they were brought over five years since the underlying cigarette entries were admitted into the FTZ, the government said (King Maker Marketing v. United States, CIT # 24-00134).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 2 referred importer California Steel Industries' suit on its denied requests for Section 232 steel tariff exclusions to court-annexed mediation before Judge Leo Gordon. The action was previously referred to mediation, though the effort proved fruitless (California Steel Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00015).