The Court of International Trade on Feb. 7 sustained the Commerce Department's use of San Shing Fastech Corp.'s financial statements to calculate the constructed value profit and indirect selling expenses for respondent Your Standing International in an antidumping duty review on steel nails from Taiwan. Judge Claire Kelly said Commerce reasonably supported its selection after considering that San Shing made comparable merchandise, had contemporaneous financial statements and made over 70% of its sales to markets outside the U.S. The judge also said that Your Standing failed to exhaust its administrative remedies when arguing that the respondent and San Shing lacked a similar customer base.
The following lawsuit has been filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. on Feb. 3 brought a complaint against importer Shunny Corp., doing business as Sampac Enterprises, alleging that the company negligently misreported the country of origin of its health products to avoid import duties. The government is seeking nearly $200,000 in unpaid duties, along with a nearly $1.4 million penalty (United States v. Shunny Corp., CIT # 25-00039).
The U.S. moved to dismiss importer Houston Shutters' case at the Court of International Trade filed under Section 1581(c) against the Commerce Department's "unpublished determination not to initiate a changed circumstances review." The government said the decision not to start the CCR isn't a decision listed under either 19 U.S.C. § 1516a or 1517, either of which would give the trade court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1581(c) (Houston Shutters v. United States, CIT # 24-00175).
The U.S. opposed a motion from importer Quantified Operations seeking to compel the government to produce unredacted internal CBP communications on the classification of the company's 3D printing pens, arguing at the Court of International Trade that the communications are irrelevant and otherwise protected by the "deliberative-process privilege" (Quantified Operations v. United States, CIT # 22-00178).
The U.S. reiterated its stance that a cigarette seller’s products were considered imported on the date of arrival for admission to a foreign-trade zone, not the date on which they left it for domestic sale. It asked the Court of International Trade to dismiss the importer’s complaint with prejudice (King Maker Marketing v. United States, CIT # 24-00134).
The U.S. and importer Mirror Metals filed a stipulated judgment on agreed facts in which the government agreed not to apply 25% Section 232 tariffs to the importer’s steel articles (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT #21-00144).
The Commerce Department erred in using a country-wide adverse facts available rate in calculating the antidumping duty rate for the separate rate respondents, importers led by Galleher Corp. argued in an opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Galleher argued the use of the AFA rate "punishes" the separate rate firms for respondent Sino-Maple's "lack of cooperation" and leads to an "aberrational margin that does not bear any relationship to the actual dumping margins of the separate rate companies" (Fuson Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1196).
The following lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade dismissed eight customs cases for lack of prosecution, noting that all cases were previously placed on the customs case management calendar but weren't removed "at the expiration of the applicable period of time of removal."