The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 5 sharply questioned importer Valeo North America's argument that the Commerce Department improperly included its T-series aluminum sheet in the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China. During a May 5 oral argument, Judges Todd Hughes, Richard Taranto and Kara Stoll pressed Valeo on its claim that Commerce distorted the scope language (Valeo North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1189).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
After Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Stanceu remanded, for the second time, a de facto specificity finding regarding a tax penalties and fines relief program used by Moroccan exporter OCP that he called “absurd,” the Commerce Department reluctantly reversed course April 29 (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00116)..
The Court of International Trade on May 2 held that importer BASF's fish oil ethyl ester concentrates "maintain the essence of fish" and are thus "extracts of fish" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603 and not "food preparations" under heading 2106.
The Court of International Trade committed "clear error" in classifying Honeywell's precut, radial, chordal and web fabric pieces used in airplane brakes as part of an aircraft under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803 without performing a GRI 2(a) analysis, the U.S. argued. Defending its bid for a rehearing before the trade court, the government said Honeywell's claim that there's no "significant flaw" in the CIT's decision ignores the fact that the court at no point found the brake segments to be a "finished part" (Honeywell International v. United States, CIT # 17-00256).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 28 issued a pair of decisions rejecting challenges from three exporters to the Commerce Department's decision to deny them separate antidumping duty rates in the 2012-13 and 2014-15 reviews of the antidumping duty order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires. Judges Richard Taranto, Raymond Clevenger and Todd Hughes said the exporters' claims on whether the agency can "deem decisive an exporter's failure to establish lack of state control of management selection" without more proof of state control over export activities were precluded by the appellate court's recent holding in Pirelli Tyre v. U.S.
The Court of International Trade in an April 22 confidential decision remanded the International Trade Commission's injury determination on phosphate fertilizer from Morocco and Russia. A docket entry from the court said on remand the ITC can "take new evidence, reconsider existing evidence, or take any other action allowed by its procedures" to reach a conclusion supported by substantial evidence (OCP v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00219).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 23 again rejected the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its analysis to detect and address "masked" dumping. A day after the court resoundingly struck down the agency's use of the test in a separate case (see Ref:2504220030]), Judges Alan Lourie, William Bryson and Leonard Stark said they were bound by the court's day-old ruling.
The Commerce Department cannot use the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping when the "underlying data is not normally distributed, equally variable, and equally and sufficiently numerous," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on April 22. Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen said that it's "unreasonable" to use the test when it's applied to "data sets that do not satisfy the statistical assumptions."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 23 again rejected the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test to detect targeted dumping in the second decision on the issue in as many days. The court said it's bound by yesterday's decision rejecting the test for not adhering to basic statistical assumptions. Writing individually, Judge Leonard Stark suggested he may have been compelled to reach a different position on the use of the test as "one step" in Commerce's "three-step differential pricing analysis" if it weren't for the court's recent decision.