The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Aug. 15 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
Country of origin cases
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The U.S. urged the Court of International Trade to uphold the Commerce Department's remand results in which it found that Vietnam Finewood Co.'s hardwood plywood made using two-ply panels imported to Vietnam from China is not subject to the scope of the AD/CVD orders on hardwood plywood from China. Submitting remand comments to the court, the agency said that since no party contests the remand results, the court should uphold them (Far East American v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00049).
The Court of International Trade should deny a government motion to amend a complaint and toss the action with respect to a single entry, American Home Assurance Company (AHAC) said in an Aug. 14 motion. DOJ is seeking antidumping duties and interest on eight single transaction bonds issued over 20 years ago (U.S. v. American Home Assurance Co., CIT # 20-00175).
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 illegally expanded the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on truck wheels from China to include truck wheels made in a third country using either Chinese-origin rims or Chinese-origin discs, but not both, exporter Asia Wheel Co., Ltd., said in an Aug. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Since Asia Wheel makes truck wheels using only Chinese-origin discs, the agency illegally included these goods under the scope of the orders, the company argued (Asia Wheel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00143).
The Commerce Department can't "short circuit the procedural requirements for new agency action" by declaring that a questionnaire can take the place of on-site verification in an antidumping duty proceeding after initially saying that it can't, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Aug. 11 opinion. The agency's change of heart, issued on remand, cuts against the Supreme Court of the U.S. finding in Dept. of Homeland Secuity v. Regents of the Univ. of California, in which the court said that on remand an agency can either take new agency action or further explain its position.
The Commerce Department dropped the antidumping duty rate for exporter Nagase & Co. from 27.21% to 15.93% after excluding the "compensation for payment" amount originally listed in the company's general and administrative expense ratio. Submitting its remand results Aug. 9 to the Court of International Trade, Commerce said it reviewed the evidence, including an additional questionnaire submitted by Nagase, and found the compensation for payment represents the reimbursement of a consignee's expenses incurred for making non-subject merchandise (Nagase & Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00574).
CBP announced an Enforce and Protect Act investigation on whether CIMC Intermodal Equipment (CIE) evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain chassis and subassemblies from China, and imposed interim measures, according to a ruling released Aug. 9.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee ruled that importer Cabinets to Go didn't demonstrate that Chinese manufacturer Haiyan's failure to certify its products' country of origin violated any material term of an agreement between the two companies (Cabinets to Go v. Qingdao Haiyan Real Estate Group Co., M.D. Tenn. # 3:21-00711).