The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The U.S. filed its opening brief on June 24 in its appeal of the Court of International Trade ruling vacating the executive orders implementing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing that CIT got it wrong "at every turn." The government told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the trade court "properly did not question whether IEEPA authorizes as a general matter," though the court improperly suggested that "giving effect to IEEPA’s text would create constitutional concerns, invoking the nondelegation doctrine" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The Court of International Trade on June 24 in a confidential decision sustained the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on lemon juice from Brazil. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Claire Kelly said she intends to issue a public version of the decision on or shortly after July 2. Kelly previously remanded the investigation so the agency could redo its analysis of whether respondent Louis Dreyfus and its unnamed supplier, Supplier A, are affiliated or are partners (see 2411180024). Kelly said Commerce failed to consider whether Louis Drefyfus has the "ability to control Supplier A," and whether the supplier is "reliant" on the respondent. On remand, Commerce continued to find that Louis Dreyfus and Supplier A aren't affiliated, nor are they partners (see 2502180037). The agency said it's important to distinguish "exclusivity" from "reliance" in affiliation analyses, noting that an exclusive relationship with a supplier doesn't mean a party isn't capable of acting independently if the exclusive relationship is no longer in its interests (Ventura Coastal v. United States, CIT # 23-00009).
Replying to U.S. opposition to its motion for judgment, shopping bag exporter Ditar said June 19 that the government still hasn’t addressed substantial evidence that Ditar’s home market sales had been made at “a more remote and significantly different level of trade” than its U.S. sales, justifying an adjustment in an antidumping duty investigation on Colombian paper shopping bags (Ditar v. United States, CIT # 24-00130).
Antidumping duty petitioner The Coalition for Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile challenged the Commerce Department's AD investigation on ceramic tile from India, arguing that the agency erred in its collapsing and affiliation analyses regarding the two mandatory respondents. The result of the investigation was a zero percent margin for the respondents, Antiqa Minerals and Win-Tel Ceramics (The Coalition for Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile v. United States, CIT # 25-00095).
CBP was right to find that Dominican aluminum exporter Kingtom Aluminio relied on forced labor to produce its merchandise, defendant-intervenors led by Aluminum Extruders Council and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry union said June 16 (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).
The Court of International Trade on June 20 upheld the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury determination on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia and South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves reviewed and sustained the ITC's decision to cumulate the imports from the four countries and its determination regarding the imports' "volume, price effects, and impact."
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Opposing the United States’ and New Zealand's claims to the contrary (see 2506040068), environmental group Maui and Hector’s Dolphin Defenders NZ again said June 10 that New Zealand’s incidental bycatch regulations and its zero mortality rate goal for endangered Maui dolphins weren’t as strong as the U.S. regulations, rendering unsustainable a National Marine Fisheries Service comparability finding (Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ v. National Marine Fisheries Service, CIT # 24-00218).
The Court of International Trade on June 17 let exporter Toyo Kohan Co. amend its complaint in an antidumping duty case to add a claim against the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision rejecting Commerce's use of the test. Judge Jane Restani said the CAFC decision "fundamentally shifted the legal standard controlling" the agency's use of the test, meaning "justice requires" the exporter be allowed to raise its claim against the test.