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).
Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif heard oral arguments April 30 regarding an affirmative evasion finding for countertop importer Vanguard Trading Co. Among other things, the case challenges the strict liability standard CBP has established for importers regarding evasion and CBP’s ability to decide when it must seek scope clarification from the Commerce Department during EAPA investigations (Vanguard Trading Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00253).
Plywood importer Interglobal Forest defended April 10 its attempt to have the Court of International Trade take judicial notice of three items from other proceedings: a stipulated judgment, a motion for entry of confession of judgment and a discovery response (American Pacific Plywood v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03914).
A panel of trade remedy authorities including a former Commerce Department assistant secretary and two U.K. government representatives surveyed March 13 the increasingly complicated global trade remedies realm, touching on how the two countries have reacted, in Georgetown University Law Center’s annual International Trade Update.
CBP didn't need to refer the question of whether petitioner CP Kelco still made oilfield xanthan gum to the Commerce Department in an antidumping duty evasion case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Feb. 27. Judges Kimberly Moore, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham said the evidence didn't support such a referral and, in any case, such a referral would only apply to future merchandise and not the goods subject to the evasion case.
Petitioner CP Kelco U.S. withdrew as a defendant-intervenor in an Enforce and Protect Act evasion case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a Feb. 6 motion. The appellate court held oral argument in the case in October 2024, indicating that the plaintiff, xanthan gum importer All One God Faith, doing business as Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, likely would not succeed in reversing the Court of International Trade's dismissal of the case, since its entries have all been liquidated (see 2410160048). Counsel for CP Kelco didn't respond to request for comment (All One God Faith v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).
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 Court of International Trade sent back the Commerce Department's determination in a covered merchandise referral 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. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves remanded Commerce's consideration of various (k)(1) sources, including a circumvention finding that took a contrary position.
Importer Integlobal Forest failed to convincingly argue that the Enforce and Protect Act isn't a strict liability statute, petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood argued. The coalition said both the "plain language of the statute and the overall statutory context" show that Congress didn't mean to require culpability of an importer as a "prerequisite" to an affirmative evasion finding (American Pacific Plywood v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03914).
New evidence provided by importers found to have evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese plywood after a Royal Brush-driven remand was insufficient to change the ultimate finding of the investigation, the United States said Dec. 13 in response to the importers’ remand redetermination comments (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 20-03914).