The Court of International Trade on Jan. 8 denied the government's bid for default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner and CEO Doris Cheng in a customs penalty case, with Judge Timothy Stanceu taking issue with the U.S. claim for a monetary penalty totaling nearly $3.4 million.
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Jan. 10 sustained the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation into pentafluoroethane (R-125) from China. Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce properly decided to use a direct valuation of an intermediate input of R-125 instead of using a valuation of the upstream raw materials. The judge also said the agency appropriately denied various byproduct offsets claimed by exporter Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co. and permissibly calculated the exporter's surrogate freight rate by taking a simple average of short- and long-haul Russian freight data.
The federal government payment website Pay.gov will undergo maintenance Jan. 12, from 5 a.m. to 4 p.m. EST, the Court of International Trade announced. Documents requiring payment through the site can't be filed on CM/ECF during this time.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Retractable Technologies on Jan. 7 dropped its lawsuit at the Court of International Trade against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 duty hike on needles and syringes. The company voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice and declined to comment on the decision (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 8 denied the government's motion for default judgment in a customs penalty suit on importer Rayson Global and its owner Doris Cheng. Judge Timothy Stanceu said the U.S. failed to provide facts to support its claim that the domestic value of the imported innersprings subject to the dispute amounted to $3,381,607.03. The judge said he couldn't reconcile the products' entered value of $945,922 with the government's alleged domestic value of the goods. The government sought a penalty, in the amount of $3,381,607.03, against Rayson and Cheng for allegedly falsely declaring the country of origin of innersprings from China.
The U.S. again pushed back Jan. 6 against domestic producer Deer Park Glycine’s claim that the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over its challenge to a denied scope ruling application (see 2412050059) (Deer Park Glycine v. U.S., CIT # 24-00016).
The Commerce Department adequately calculated the boat freight surrogate value in an antidumping duty review without making an adjustment for distance, the U.S. argued. Responding to respondent Giti Tire Global Trading's motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade, the government said Commerce showed that its calculation was in line with its past practice (Giti Tire Global Trading v. United States, CIT # 24-00083).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 7 clarified the standard Commerce must follow when determining how high it can set a review respondent’s antidumping duty rate based on adverse inferences. Rejecting a "single sentence" justification for an adverse facts available rate Commerce offered in the final results of a review, it held the department may not drastically depart from accuracy without establishing a "particularly strong need to deter noncompliance" based on record evidence showing unreasonable negligence or intentional misconduct.
CBP will liquidate importer Neo Chemicals & Oxides' mixed oxide products using a "first sale" transaction valuation method, the government and importer said in a stipulated judgment. Submitting the stipulation to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 6, the parties said the company's entries "will be appraised under the transaction value method based on the prices the middleman paid to the manufacturer." Neo brought the suit in 2021 seeking first sale valuation of its goods classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule headings 3815 and 2846 (see 2108190065) (Neo Chemicals & Oxides v. United States, CIT # 21-00453).