The Court of International Trade on May 1 and May 2 dismissed two lawsuits -- one at the behest of the plaintiff, Vinh Hoan Corp., the other for lack of prosecution. Vinh Hoan contested the Commerce Department's final results in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. Plaintiff's counsel Matthew McConkey said the voluntary dismissal was filed after later action from Commerce "demonstrated our issue of concern was moot, especially as our calculated rate was 0%." Importer van Gelder's suit challenging the classification of its floor covering (vinyl tiles) was dismissed because the suit wasn't removed prior to the expiration of the customs case management calendar's period of time of removal (Vinh Hoan Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00077) (van Gelder v. U.S., CIT # 21-00160).
There is no statutory basis for the U.S. to counterclaim seeking reclassification of an importer’s products under a Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading with a higher rate than the one under which CBP liquidated them, that importer argued in an April 30 motion for judgment in a case that began in 2013 (see 2403140067) (BASF Corp. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 13-00318).
The Commerce Department erred in finding that seafood seller Luscious Seafood didn't qualify as a "bona fide wholesaler of domestic like product" during the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, Luscious said in a May 1 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Luscious Seafood v. U.S., CIT # 24-00069).
The Court of International Trade on May 2 sustained the Commerce Department's recalculation of exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container's sales expenses in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on steel propane cylinders from Thailand. Judge M. Miller Baker said that Sahamitr failed to undermine Commerce's finding that the company's monthly-based calculation of its sales costs were distortive.
The Court of International Trade on May 2 again sent back the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's full allotment of emissions permits under the Emissions Trading System of Korea (K-ETS) was de jure specific. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce improperly used de facto specificity analysis factors, including data on who received the allotments, in assessing whether the additional permit allocations were specific as a matter of law.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a confidential May 1 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's eighth review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. Judge Claire Kelly's text-only version of the opinion sent back Commerce's "determination of the review specific rate applicable to JA Solar and BYD." In a letter, Kelly gave the parties until May 8 to review the confidential information in the opinion (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00219).
Southwest Airlines argued in an April 30 motion for judgment that CBP illicitly exacted Customs Passenger Processing Fees for passengers that canceled ticket purchases with the airline (Southwest Airlines Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00141).
Importer Nutricia North America told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that classifying its substances used to "treat life-threatening diseases in young children" as food preparations "not elsewhere specified" as opposed to "medicaments" or items "for the use or benefit" of handicapped people would lead to the "parents of very ill children" paying higher prices for these substances. In its opening brief on April 30, Nutricia said that this isn't the result Congress intended and that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule "can and should be interpreted to avoid that result" (Nutricia North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1436).
The Court of International Trade on May 2 again remanded the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's full allocation of emissions permits under the Emissions Trading System of Korea was a de jure specific subsidy. Judge Mark Barnett said the agency illicitly considered factors used as part of a de facto specificity analysis to assess the program, noting that those factors can't be used to find if the program is specific as a matter of law. However, the judge sustained Commerce's findings that the full allotment amounted to a financial contribution to respondent Hyundai Steel Co. and that the company benefited from the allotment.