The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated April 29 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The Court of International Trade in an April 19 decision made public April 29 sent back for the third time the Commerce Department's decision not to investigate the sale of off-peak electricity in South Korea for less than adequate remuneration. Judge Mark Barnett said that Commerce failed to explain why evidence submitted by petitioner Nucor Corp. was insufficient "pursuant to the low standard" for opening a subsidy investigation established in RZBC Group Shareholding Co. v. U.S.
The U.S. and a domestic petitioner April 25 opposed an importer’s motion for judgment in a scope case, arguing that, because the product at issue was coated with a substance that promotes the adherence of ink and other artist materials, the importer’s canvas banner matisse was subject to an antidumping duty order on certain artist canvas from China (Printing Textiles, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00192).
Several importers appealed for relief April 22 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, saying in their opening brief that the International Trade Commission wrongly reached an affirmative critical circumstances determination regarding their Vietnamese honey imports and the Court of International Trade erroneously upheld it (Sweet Harvest Foods v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1370).
The Court of International Trade on April 19 sent back the International Trade Commission's decision to cumulate imports of oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Argentina, Mexico, Russia and South Korea, in part because the commission failed to take into account the effect of U.S. sanctions on Russia in assessing whether the Russian goods compete at the same level of competition as the good from the other nations.
The Commerce Department misapplied the presumption of foreign state control by framing it as a burden on antidumping and countervailing duty respondents to "completely disprove potential government control," exporter Guizhou Tyre Co. argued in an April 18 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2165).
The Court of International Trade on April 19 remanded the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury finding on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia and South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said it was "unreasonable" for the ITC to view the conditions of competition over a 42-month review period without considering the effects of competition at the end of the period and on the day that it voted, particularly in light of the effect of U.S. sanctions on Russia, imposed over the last four months of the review period. The judge also cited as reasons for the remand the commission's failure to consider contrary evidence of the effects of sanctions on Russian OCTG and the ITC's inclusion of non-subject South Korean imports in its analysis. She upheld the commission's decision to cumulate imports from Argentina and Mexico with goods from Russia and South Korea.
The Court of International Trade sent back the Commerce Department's finding that exporter East Sea Seafoods Joint Stock Co. qualified for a separate antidumping duty rate in the 2019-20 review of the AD order on catfish from Vietnam, remarking that the agency failed to "show its work." Judge M. Miller Baker additionally remanded Commerce's methodology for calculating exporter Green Farms' AD rate and selection of India over Indonesia as the primary surrogate nation for setting the rate for exporter NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Company.
The International Trade Commission on April 16 continued to stick by its decision that imports of methionine from Spain had "significant price effects on prices for the domestic like product," part of its finding in an antidumping duty investigation that the imports of the product injured U.S. industry. In remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade, the commission said it considered the "factual accuracy of the volume of lost sales," as instructed by the court, and came to the same conclusion (Adisseo Espana v. United States, CIT # 21-00562).
The Court of International Trade in an opinion made public April 16 sent back the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against exporter Garg Tube Exports in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India.