The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Galleher submitted a notice of appeal on Oct. 8 at the Court of International Trade, indicating it will take a case on the 2017 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Last month, the trade court sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the review, after the agency added a second respondent on remand and reconsidered certain benchmark calculations (see 2509120004). However, Galleher is appealing Commerce's decision to apply the individually calculated CVD rate to Jiangsu Guyu International Trading in the review, "despite deselecting the company as a mandatory respondent," which was at issue at an earlier stage of litigation (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03885).
Arguing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 3 that the Commerce Department was right to exclude its in-transit mattresses from its affiliated importer’s constructed export price, exporter PT. Zinus Global Indonesia said petitioners “overstate their case” that data anomalies rendered the department’s choice unreasonable (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1674).
The Commerce Department permissibly rejected an adjustment to the cost of production of utility-scale wind towers to "account for production volume decreases before a shutdown" and properly selected two Malaysian pipe manufacturers as the surrogate companies to determine antidumping duty respondent CS Wind's constructed value profit, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 8. Judge Gary Katzmann upheld both of Commerce's decisions challenged by CS Wind in the 2021-22 administrative review of the AD order on Malaysian utility-scale wind towers, leaving the exporter with a 17.97% AD rate.
The Court of International Trade upheld CBP's determination, made on remand, that importer Scioto Valley Woodworking, Inc., evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. In a decision made public Oct. 9, Judge Lisa Wang rejected Scioto's claim that CBP can only make an affirmative evasion finding if it finds the importer to actually have imported covered merchandise through evasion, and the judge found the evasion determination to be supported by substantial evidence.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 10 sustained the Commerce Department's decision not to treat interest accrued on respondent Koehler Paper's unpaid antidumping duties as an indirect selling expense in the 2021-22 AD review of thermal paper from Germany. Judge Gary Katzmann said interest accrued on sales made prior to the review period doesn't qualify for either the statutory or regulatory definition of an indirect selling expense, since the interest doesn't relate to the sale of "subject merchandise," namely merchandise sold during the review period. The judge added that a prior CIT decision upholding the treatment of interest on AD duties as an indirect selling expense didn't directly consider whether such interest met the statutory or regulatory definition of an indirect selling expense.
The Commerce Department properly excluded seven types of bricks imported by Fedmet Resources Corp. from the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China on remand, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 9. Judge M. Miller Baker said the conclusion comports with a 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which led to the standard that the addition of any amount of alumina to a magnesia carbon brick excludes it from the orders.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Exporters Deacero and I.N.G.E.T.E.K.N.O.S. Estructurales on Oct. 3 dropped their antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade. The companies filed suit last month to contest the final results of the Commerce Department's 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico. Counsel for Deacero didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Deacero v. United States, CIT # 25-00216).
Target General Merchandise will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision regarding the tariff classification of the company's string light models, according to a notice Target filed at the trade court. Last month, CIT found string light models to be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9405 as lamps with a "permanently fixed light source" not specified elsewhere in the tariff schedule and not under heading 8543 as parts of electrical machines having individual functions not specified elsewhere in the chapter (see 2508130023). The court said Target's seven models of string lights specifically fall under subheading 9405.30.00 as lighting sets "of a kind used for Christmas trees," subjecting the goods to an 8% duty (Target General Merchandise v. United States, CIT Consol. # 15-00069).