The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 23 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey. Judge Jane Restani said Commerce legally deducted Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid by exporter Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi from its U.S. price. Noksel argued the government, by increasing the duties solely for goods from Turkey, distinguished the duties from the other Section 232 tariffs. Restani saw "no reason to vary" from past court rulings on this point. The judge also rejected Noksel's bid for a duty drawback adjustment.
The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department’s duty drawback calculation in its final remand redetermination for an antidumping duty investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey, AD respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret (Assan) said in its July 31 response comments (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00246).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The duty drawback methodology applied by the Commerce Department to Turkish exporter Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret is "fundamentally flawed" and cuts against the statute's plain language, antidumping duty petitioner Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group told the Court of International Trade in a brief on Commerce's remand results on the AD investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #21-00246).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
CBP found an article description for aircraft parts at the 10-digit level in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule begins with "other" and correctly denied a claim for unused substitution drawback, DOJ said in a June 2 cross motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade. The case concerns the placement of the word "other" in the superior text between the 8-digit HTS subheading and the 10-digit statistical reporting number. The court's ruling could shake up the industry and could change how CBP interprets what HTS numbers are eligible or not for this type of drawback (see 2303270031) (Spirit Aerosystems v. U.S., CIT # 20-00094).
The Commerce Department decided to use adverse facts available related to antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret's billing adjustments following a Court of International Trade order questioning whether Assan acted to the best of its ability in its remand results submitted to the trade court May 31. The agency also revised the duty drawback adjustment methodology it applied to Assan by dividing the amount of duties exempted by a Turkish duty exemption program during the AD investigation period over the total quantity of exports made under the program to calculate a per-unit drawback adjustment. The result, if sustained, would be a de minimis rate for Assan (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00246).
A case making its way through the Court of International Trade concerning CBP's interpretation of the drawback statute could result in a "win-win for the drawback community," law firm Neville Peterson said in a blog post. The case could see the court "employ a rule of lenity" when interpreting what is an "article description" for the purposes of setting substitution unused merchandise drawback eligibility, the firm claimed.
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
CBP’s interpretation of the drawback statute and programming of its ACE Drawback Module led to an "absurd" rejection of substitution unused merchandise drawback eligibility for an importer of civil aviation equipment that disregards the basic structure of the tariff schedule, Spirit Aerosystems said in a March 24 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Spirit Aerosystems v. U.S., CIT # 20-00094).