The Commerce Department on Jan. 24 dropped exporter Hyundai Steel Co.'s countervailing duty rate to a de minimis mark on remand in a suit contesting the rate applicable to Hyundai's usage rights for the North Incheon Harbor in South Korea. The agency said at the Court of International Trade that it considered the exporter's "construction costs in the benefit calculation," though it disagreed that the construction costs should be considered at all (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00304).
A South Korean aluminum foil importer filed suit at the Court of International Trade against an anti-circumvention inquiry that found multiple importers attempted to avoid antidumping duties on Chinese aluminum foil using intermediaries in South Korea (Hanon Systems Alabama v. U.S., CIT # 23-00269).
Past evidence of antidumping and countervailing duty evasion doesn't mean an exporter must still be transshipping goods, the U.S. said Jan. 22 in response to an AD/CVD petitioner’s motion for summary judgment in a case challenging the Commerce Department’s determination that wooden cabinet importers were not attempting to evade AD/CVD orders on products from China (American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance v. U.S., CIT # 23-00140).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Commerce Department repeatedly relied on an analysis in several administrative reviews that the courts had already struck down, an exporter of Indian carbon steel welded pipe said in a Jan.19 brief responding to comments made by DOJ and domestic petitioners regarding its own motion for summary judgment (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT # 21-00169).
An importer’s duty drawback claim was not automatically liquidated after one year because that importer failed to file the necessary paperwork, as the entries its drawback claim was made on had liquidated but not “become final,” the U.S. said Jan. 19 in response to comments on its motion for summary judgment (Performance Additives v. U.S., CIT # 22-00044).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 19 sustained the Commerce Department's use of exporter PhosAgro's profit before tax number instead of its gross profit mark when calculating the company's phosphate mining rights benefit.
New questionnaire responses showed it was a common domestic practice to reship surplus merchandise accidentally ordered to flooded markets, the International Trade Commission said as it continued to find on remand that Moroccan and Russian phosphate fertilizer had depressed U.S. fertilizer prices and harmed U.S. industry (OCP v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00219).
A Greek pipe exporter said Commerce made an error calculating its dumping rate, then violated antidumping duty laws when it didn't allow comment before hitting it with an adverse facts available rate, in a Jan. 16 reply brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2094).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York: