The Commerce Department ignored the Court of International Trade's and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's instructions when it continued to rely on the "likely selling price" of non-prime goods to set rates in an antidumping duty case, exporter AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke said in a March 15 brief responding to Commerce's remand results. Dillinger says the agency continued to use facts otherwise available even after the trade court ruled it unsupported, arguing Commerce must instead use the company's actual data (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT Consol. #17-00158).
Imported net wrap should be classified in Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8433 as part of harvesting machinery under subheading 8433.90.50 or agricultural machinery under heading 8436, rather than as textile material under heading 6005, RKW Klerks said in a motion filed March 15 at the Court of International Trade. RKW argued that the imported netwrap is "only used in harvesting machinery to produce round bales of hay, silage and fodder," a function that is "fixed with certainty at the time of importation" (RKW Klerks Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00001).
Antidumping duty respondents Best Mattresses International Company's and Rose Lion Furniture Company's challenge of the Commerce Department's differential pricing analysis should be tossed since the DPA did not injure the plaintiffs, DOJ said in a March 11 brief at the Court of International Trade. Since the DPA ultimately found that no "masked" dumping was occurring, the use of the analysis, which is based on a statistical test called into question by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last year, did not give Best Mattresses and Rose Lion any standing to challenge it, the U.S. argued (Best Mattresses International Company v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00281).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied on March 16 U.S. pipe maker Welspun Tubular's motion for rehearing in a case on whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value in an antidumping duty proceeding. The appellate court issued a two-page order denying the en banc rehearing motion without a further explanation (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1748).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade extended the mediation period for a case brought by Evraz challenging the Commerce Department's denial of the importer's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests. In the March 15 order, the trade court gave the parties until April 29 to resolve litigation led by Judge Leo Gordon. Evraz called for mediation, along with other litigants, to discuss the availability of a remedy for already liquidated entries (Evraz Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-03869).
DOJ joined a motion to dismiss a countervailing duty case originally filed by CVD petitioner Dextar Wheels arguing that the Court of International Trade cannot order the Commerce Department to correct something it did not do in the first place. Filing its own motion to dismiss on March 15, DOJ said that the plaintiff, steel wheel importer Rimco, failed to make a claim on which relief can be granted since Commerce did not even establish an all-others rate in a CVD review -- precisely what Rimco is challenging (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00588).
Victoria's Secret and One Step Up filed 19 complaints at the Court of International Trade alleging that CBP had misclassified women's garments over a series of entries between 2002 and 2008. The 13 complaints (in Pacer) by Victoria's Secret and six by One Step Up filed on March 12 ask CIT to direct CBP to reliquidate the entries and refund the excess duties collected, with interest.
The Court of International Trade should disregard DOJ's motion to dismiss Canadian exporter J.D. Irving's challenge to antidumping duty cash deposit instructions since an already initiated USMCA panel would not be able to apply the proper remedy, the exporter said in a March 14 reply brief. Though the USMCA panel is reviewing the same legal issue raised at CIT, the relief available differs in that the USMCA panels do not have the power to issue an injunction, J.D. Irving said (J.D. Irving Limited v. United States, CIT #21-00641).
Importer Root Sciences was denied on March 15 its motion for reconsideration of a Court of International Trade ruling that CBP's seizure of Root's imports precluded a deemed exclusion, stripping the court of jurisdiction over the case. Judge Gary Katzmann said that because the reconsideration motion "amounts to nothing more than a disagreement with the court’s reasoning on matters fully litigated, devoid of showing manifest error, it is insufficient to warrant reconsideration and is denied."