Coinciding with an increased use of CBP's Enforce and Protect Act process for investigating possible antidumping and/or countervailing duty evasion is a feeling among importers that EAPA action is largely skewed toward the alleger. “Typically, the first notice the importer receives is after the agency has already accepted the allegation and imposed draconian ‘Interim Measures’ that treat the importers’ goods as subject to anti-dumping and countervailing duties, a process" that "has proven to be massively unjust,” Mary Hodgins, a lawyer at Morris Manning, said by email. The process is facing increased scrutiny, with several lawsuits that raise due process questions making their way through the courts.
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "China import").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead.
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., +CBP).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., -ruling).
Singular form: Always use the singular form when doing multi-word terms (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls").
Shortest word form: When you have different word forms in a quoted (multi-word) term, you want to only include the shortest version if it is the last part of the expression (e.g., "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
Insulated staples imported by Stanley Black & Decker are not subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on collated steel staples from China (A-570-112/C-570-113), the Commerce Department said in a scope ruling issued June 8. As in a previous scope ruling on Chinese staples, the agency found Stanley’s insulated staples are collated in a manner different from that set out in the original AD duty petition.
An importer’s lawsuit claiming it should have been assessed AD duties at a lower import-specific antidumping duty rate has run into jurisdictional issues, and a recently filed amended complaint from the importer that was accepted by the Court of International Trade on June 9 aims to clear them up.
Steel rebar importer Power Steel Co. paid Section 232 duties on its imports, and those payments were eligible to be deducted from its U.S. price in an antidumping case, the Department of Justice argued in a June 9 brief in the Court of International Trade (Power Steel Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #20-03771).
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 "finally" came to a conclusion in an antidumping administrative review on large power transformers from South Korea that is in line with "record facts, the law and basic standards of investigative fairness," mandatory respondent Hyosung Heavy Industries Corporation said in June 7 comments on remand results. Joined by the other mandatory respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries and the Department of Justice, Hyosung voiced its approval of the remand results in the Court of International Trade, which scrapped the application of total adverse facts available after DOJ requested a voluntary remand to "reconsider" the original determinations (Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #18-00066).
The Commerce Department's decision on remand to reverse its affirmative determination that certain hardwood plywood products from China circumvented antidumping and countervailing duties "defies a wealth of evidence about what actually occurred in the hardwood plywood market," petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood said in June 7 comments on Commerce's remand results. Commerce ignored multiple pieces of contradictory evidence in making its determination following a Court of International Trade opinion remanding the case and made a determination that undermines its own conclusion that certain hardwood plywood was not "later-developed" after the AD/CVD orders, the coalition said (Shelter Forest International Acquisition, Inc. et al v. United States, CIT #19-00212).
The Commerce Department should have used the highest margin for the sole mandatory respondent in an antidumping case since the agency decided to rely on adverse facts available in the investigation, domestic silicon metal producers Globe Specialty Metals and Mississippi Silicon said in a June 7 complaint in the Court of International Trade. The two producers also challenged Commerce's decision to disregard that rate based on a financial statement from a firm "whose financial results were dominated by operations unrelated to the production of silicon metal" (Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. and Mississippi Silicon LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00231).
The Court of International Trade issued a confidential opinion in an antidumping case on welded line pipe from South Korea sustaining the Commerce Department's remand results in part and remanding in part, according to a June 7 filing. According to a letter filed by Judge Claire Kelly, the public version of the decision is expected either on or shortly after June 15 once all parties review bracketed information to determine its level of confidentiality. The case, originally filed by Husteel Co., concerns, among other things, Commerce's finding of a particular market situation in Korea for welded line pipe, the agency's reliance, or lack thereof, on a mandatory respondent's third country sales to calculate normal value and Commerce's reclassification of a respondent's reported losses associated with suspended production as general and administrative expenses.
A pasta maker found ineligible for an acquired company’s antidumping duty exemption in a 2014 changed circumstances review cannot use that predecessor’s antidumping and countervailing duty rates for entries before the effective date of the final results of that review, CBP said in a recent ruling. Instead, the pasta maker must file at the all others rate for entries before the changed circumstances review took effect, CBP said in HQ H287183, issued March 26 and posted to CBP’s CROSS database June 3.