The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's decision to rescind the 2019 reviews of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China with regard to exporter Kingtom Aluminio following CBP's decision to reverse its finding that Kingtom evaded the orders.
CBP properly found that importers American Pacific Plywood, InterGlobal Forest and U.S. Global Forest evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on plywood from China via Cambodian producer LB Wood, the Court of International Trade held on July 9. Judge M. Miller Baker sustained the evasion determination over a host of legal, procedural and factual claims made by InterGlobal.
The Court of International Trade on July 9 sustained CBP's finding that importers American Pacific Plywood, InterGlobal Forest and U.S. Global Forest evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on plywood from China through Cambodian manufacturer LB Wood. Judge M. Miller Baker held that all that's required for liability to attach under the Enforce and Protect Act is "the entry of covered merchandise through any material false statement or material omission that avoids antidumping and countervailing duties, except those resulting from clerical errors," noting that even clerical errors are evasion if they are "part of a pattern of negligent conduct." The judge also held that CBP isn't precluded from finding that shipments from LB Wood are of Chinese origin in light of two other CIT cases the agency settled in which it said shipments from LB Wood are of Cambodian origin. Baker said the doctrine of judicial estoppel doesn't apply here, however, since CBP didn't succeed in advancing a position "directly inconsistent" with its theory in the present case, given that its initial position in the two settled cases was identical to its position here "but it then ran up the white flag."
The Court of International Trade on July 3 sustained CBP's finding that importers Newtrend USA, Starille and Nutrawave evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on glycine from China via Indonesia-based exporter PT Newtrend Nutrition Ingredient. Judge Stephen Vaden said CBP adequately supported its finding that PT Newtrend's Indonesian factory couldn't produce all the glycine it shipped to the U.S. and that at least some of the exported glycine was sourced in China.
Opposing the Commerce Department’s continued determination on remand that "rough" carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China that were processed into finished fittings in Vietnam weren't of Chinese origin (see 2505050031), domestic producers Tube Forgings of America and Mills Iron Works again argued that “rough” pipe fittings are the same as “unfinished” ones (Tube Forgings of America, Inc. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00231).
The Court of International Trade on June 17 denied importer Global Aluminum Distributor's motion for attorney's fees in an Enforce and Protect Act case. Judge Richard Eaton held that the government's position in the EAPA case was "substantially justified" (H&E Home v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00337).
CBP wasn't required to make a scope referral to the Commerce Department in its antidumping duty evasion case against importer Vanguard Trading Co., since CBP properly exercised its authority in determining that Vanguard's products were under the scope of the relevant AD order, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public May 27.
The U.S. filed a May 19 supplemental brief in a 2021 case involving dual-stenciled pipe from Thailand to address the case’s last “remaining contention” after the importer lost in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 21-00081).
The Court of International Trade on May 19 upheld CBP's final determination that importer Vanguard Trading Co. evaded the antidumping duty order on Chinese quartz countertops. Judge Timothy Reif issued a confidential decision in the case upholding the evasion determination. Among other things, Vanguard challenged the strict liability standard that CBP established for importers regarding evasion and its ability to decide when it must seek scope clarification from the Commerce Department during Enforce and Protect Act duty evasion investigations (Vanguard Trading Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00253).
The Commerce Department continued to exclude certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings made from Chinese fittings that underwent production in Vietnam from the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on May 2, Commerce assessed various (k)(1) sources, namely the original 1991 petition, the 1992 International Trade Commission report, a prior circumvention finding and statements from industry officials upon direction from the court (Tube Forgings of America v. United States, CIT # 23-00231).