The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 sustained the Commerce’s Department’s third remand results in an case that revolved around the constructed value calculation in an antidumping duty review on steel nails from Oman. The trade court found Commerce justified its switch on remand between surrogate companies, despite calls from the exporter under review to use a different company.
Following the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's remand results at the Court of International Trade further justifying its lists 3 and 4A tariff action, it can be expected for the thousands of plaintiffs to argue that the explanation falls short in addressing the trade court's concerns, three Wiley Rein attorneys said in an Aug. 2 alert on the remand results. The plaintiffs will further argue that "the court should order the tariffs to be lifted," the law firm said.
Antidumping duty respondent Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi relied on a "mischaracterization of the facts" when arguing against the Commerce Department's use of home market prices denominated in Turkish lira, antidumping petitioners, led by Cleveland-Cliffs, argued in an Aug. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The petitioners said that, contrary to the respondent's contention, the invoice stated prices in lira and that it was the lira value and not the U.S. dollar value that controlled how much the customer paid, making Commerce's move legal (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. United States, CIT #21-00527).
The U.S.'s "unreasonable delay" in asserting claims seeking to collect antiduming duties on entries of canned mushrooms brought in between 2000 and 2001 warrants dismissal of its case at the Court of International Trade seeking the duties, surety company American Home Assurance Co. (AHAC) argued in an Aug. 1 reply brief. Responding to the court's request for more briefing over AHAC's affirmative defense and claims of prejudice, the surety company said that it has not been able to actually provide significant evidence of actual harm "despite best efforts," but that the case should be decided on statute of limitations grounds (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175).
Court of International Trade Judge Leo Gordon ruled against importer Cyber Power Systems in four motions -- two from Cyber Power, and two from the government -- in a case regarding the country of origin of imported surgery protectors (Cyber Power Systems v. U.S., CIT #20-00124).
Importer Compart Systems dismissed its customs dispute in an Aug. 4 motion at the Court of International Trade. The company filed the case to contest the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification of its parts and accessories for the manufacture of semiconductors. The parts liquidated under subheading 8481.10.0090, dutiable at 2%, but the company vied for classification under subheading 8486.90.0000, free of duty. Compart Systems' notice of dismissal did not provide a reason for the case being tossed, and counsel for the importer did not reply to request for comment (Compart Systems v. U.S., CIT #21-00558).
The Court of International Trade should overturn a decision by CBP to classify imported desk pad and planning calendars, importer Blue Sky said in a complaint filed Aug. 4 at the Court of International Trade (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination, LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00624).
Four honey importers -- Honey Solutions, Sunland Trading, Export Packers Co. and Sweet Harvest Foods -- filed four nearly identical complaints at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 4 arguing against the International Trade Commission's decision that led to the antidumping duty order on raw honey from Vietnam. The six-count complaints argue against that, contrary to the ITC's findings, the Vietnamese import volume has not jumped enough to undermine the remedial effect of the antidumping order such as to require a critical circumstances determination.
The Commerce Department cannot deduct Section 232 national security duties from antidumping duty respondent Borusan Mannesman's U.S. price because the duties are remedial, temporary and deducting them would count as a double remedy, making them unlike normal customs duties, the respondent argued. Filing a reply brief Aug. 4 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the respondent said Commerce failed to conduct a "fulsome analysis" of whether the Section 232 duties are more like normal customs duties or to special duties, like Section 201 safeguards, and instead "confined its analysis" to finding distinctions between Section 232 and Section 201 duties. The agency also failed to acknowledge the "legal and constitutional distinction between regular duties imposed by Congress" and special duties imposed by the president (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2097).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 4 order denied defendant Greenlight Organic and Parambir Singh Aulakh's motion for summary judgment over the date that the U.S. discovered customs fraud for the purpose of finding whether the statute of limitations had run out. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that the undisputed facts don't back any of three dates floated by the defendants as the date that the U.S. first received evidence of Greenlight's double invoicing scheme. In the scheme, Greenlight is accused of fraudulently misclassifying its Vietnam-origin knit garments.