The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Country of origin cases
The Commerce Department illegally relied on unverified data from respondent Saffron Living Co. in an antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Thailand, the Court of International Trade ruled in a July 20 opinion. While the government claimed that because Commerce was unable to verify Saffron's information, it could use the exporter's information as facts otherwise available, Judge M. Miller Baker said this reading would "eviscerate the separate requirement" that Commerce verify all information relied on in making a final determination.
The Commerce Department got its remand results right when it concluded that hardwood plywood made using two-ply panels imported into Vietnam from China and then exported to the U.S. by the Vietnam Finewood Company were outside the scope of antidumping and countervailing duties on hardwood plywood from China, plaintiffs Far East American and Liberty Woods International said in a July 19 response (Far East American v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00049).
The Court of International Trade in a July 19 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision to assign exporter Double Coin Holdings the 105.31% China-wide antidumping duty rate in an administrative review of the AD order on off-the-road tires from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu said the decision complies with the court's previous decision finding that Double Coin did not rebut the presumption of Chinese state control over its export activities. No parties commented on the remand results.
The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion refused to invalidate its past order instructing CBP to reliquidate Target Corp.'s metal-top ironing tables, saying that doing so would "turn the clock back over 40 years" prior to the Customs Courts Act's passage and "again call into question whether a party before the Court could obtain full and complete relief." Reversing the order as Target requests would "elevate the principle of finality" of liquidation "over the inherent power" of the trade court under Article III of the Constitution, Judge Leo Gordon said.
The World Trade Organization's published agenda for the Dispute Settlement Body's July 28 meeting includes U.S. status reports on the implementation of DSB recommendations on antidumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan; antidumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from South Korea; certain methodologies and their application to antidumping proceedings involving China; and Section 110(5) of the U.S. Copyright Act. Status reports are also expected from Indonesia on measures related to the import of horticultural products, animals and animal products, and from the EU on measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products.
The partial revocation of an antidumping duty order for a Turkish company should have meant that company's export volumes were to be excluded from a sunset review of the AD order, Turkish steelmaker Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) argued in a July 14 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00351).
The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion granted the government's motion to toss Target's case seeking to invalidate a CIT order instructing CBP reliquidate Target's metal-top iron tables at the 72.29% dumping rate instead of the original 9.47% rate. Judge Leo Gordon said that were Target to succeed, the result would "turn the clock back over 40 years" prior to the Customs Court Act's passage and "again call into question whether a party before the Court could obtain full and complete relief." Reversing the order as Target requests would "elevate the principle of finality" of liquidation "over the inherent power" of the trade court under Article III of the Constitution, the judge said.
The Commerce Department shouldn't have rejected a questionnaire response in an antidumping duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Spain, considering that the agency relied on responses from the relevant company on remand, Siemens Gemesa Renewable Energy argued in its July 17 remand comments at the Court of International Trade (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. U.S., CIT # 21-00449).
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative exceeded its authority in imposing the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China, covering a total of $320 billion worth of Chinese imports, plaintiff-appellants in the massive case against the duties, led by HTMX Industries and Jasco Products Co., argued in their opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Appealing the Court of International Trade's decision upholding the tariffs (see 2204010061), the companies said USTR did not have the authority to set the duties since the authority was not directly delegated by Congress, in violation of the "major questions doctrine" (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).