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. 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).
Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, an importer of enriched isotope compounds, supported Jan. 23 its October motion for judgment (see 2410250044) over the government’s opposition (see 2412260034). It again said its products aren’t covered by the relevant antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders -- or, alternatively, if the orders are ambiguous, the Commerce Department must conduct an analysis of k(1) factors (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. United States, CIT # 23-00080).
Responding to a request by the court, multiple parties filed four different briefs addressing the impact of Loper Bright on litigation regarding the use of a differential pricing analysis in a Canadian lumber review (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00187).
Two former senior advisers from the Commerce Department, Sahar Hafeez and Julian Beach, have joined Pillsbury Winthrop in the regulatory business unit and international trade practice, the firm announced. Hafeez rejoins the firm as senior counsel after serving in various roles at Commerce and the White House, most recently as senior adviser to the assistant secretary for industry and analysis at Commerce. Beach joins the firm as special counsel, most recently working as senior adviser and chief-of-staff for enforcement and compliance at Commerce.
Countervailing duty petitioner Nucor Corp. will appeal a Court of International Trade case on whether the Commerce Department can countervail three debt-to-equity infusions made to exporter KG Dongbu Steel Co. in the 2019 CVD review on corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea. In the case, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce couldn't countervail the D/E swaps after previously refusing to do so in the prior CVD reviews, without finding a mistake of fact or analysis (see 2407030073). The judge then upheld the agency's decision not to countervail the restructurings on remand, finding that the evidence didn't support finding that the South Korean government pressured non-governmental institutions to take part in debt restructuring (see 2501170044) (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00047).
In its opposition to a reconsideration request in a vehicle sidebar classification case, the U.S. “misleads” the court by claiming that exporter Keystone Automotives was attempting to relitigate its position. Actually, the exporter said, its request is “based on the standard of review of the tariff exclusion” Keystone had relied on in its initial arguments (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).
Defendant-intervenor Dixon Ticonderoga on Jan. 28 joined the Commerce Department in opposing pencil importer School Specialty’s scope ruling challenge before the Court of International Trade (School Specialty v. United States, CIT # 24-00098).
The Commerce Department's antidumping duty order on artist canvas from China is "void-for-vagueness and unconstitutional," importer Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its opening brief. The company argued that Commerce's "impermissibly unlawful" scope ruling including its canvas banner matisse within the scope of the order "denied Berger adequate notice," adding that the agency "failed to address due process concerns of vague language in the scope of the order" (Printing Textiles v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1213).
The Commerce Department reasonably found that holding company Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy S.A. is an "exporter or producer" under its regulations in an antidumping duty investigation on wind towers from Spain, the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 28. Judge Timothy Stanceu said the agency appropriately considered the evidence and rejected petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition's position that Siemens Gamesa didn't have a role in the production of wind towers and, thus, didn't have to rescind the investigation on the company.