The Court of International Trade in a confidential Aug. 21 opinion again sent back the Commerce Department's decision not to investigate the alleged off-peak sale of electricity below cost as part of the 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. Judge Mark Barnett also remanded for a second time the agency's decision not to treat POSCO Plantec, an affiliate of respondent POSCO, as a cross-owned input supplier of POSCO regarding the supply of scrap (Nucor Corp. v. United States, CIT # 21-00182).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 22 opinion upheld CBP's remand results in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation that found importer Aspects Furniture International evaded antidumping duties on wooden bedroom furniture from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that CBP properly relied on statements from CBP employees, which revealed that these employees saw workers in the Chinese manufacturing plants destroying documents. As a result of this conduct observed during verification, the agency levied adverse inferences against the importer. The judge said the adverse inferences and the overall evasion finding were proper given not only the document destruction but the many discrepancies found in Aspects' entry documents when compared to other evidence.
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 22 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision on remand to find that hardwood plywood made by the Vietnam Finewood Co. using two-ply panels imported into Vietnam from China is outside the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. Judge Mark Barnett said that the scope decision complies with his previous order instructing Commerce to issue a scope ruling in line with the "unambiguous terms" of the orders' scope.
The government cannot collect 20-year-old customs bonds when it took no action to collect them for over a decade, ruled the Court of International Trade in an opinion made public on Aug. 22. Judge Richard Eaton found the six-year statute of limitations on the bonds "began to run at liquidation when all of the events necessary to bring suit for the duties owed had occurred," not when CBP demanded payment. Even if the court agreed that CBP's claim that its action for breach of contract accrued thirty days after AHAC failed to pay, the claims would still be time-barred, said Eaton. Issuing a demand for payment was an act solely within the control of CBP. "Like any prudent litigant, CBP ... must act reasonably in pursuing its claims under a bond," he said.
The Commerce Department failed to consider the "reliance interests" of antidumping petitioners led by Bonney Forge Co. when sticking by its decision to find that questionnaires issued in lieu of on-site verification satisfied the statute's requirement for verification, the Court of International Trade ruled on Aug. 21. Judge Stephen Vaden said that while past practice "is not an inescapable straitjacket," an agency must put a "reasoned explanation on the record" in compliance with the rules established by the Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California.
Importers American Pacific Plywood, U.S. Global Forest and InterGlobal Forest will appeal a June opinion by the Court of International Trade, which ruled that CBP did not misapply the substantial evidence standard when it found the three importers evaded the antidumping and countervailing duties on hardwood plywood products from China, according to an Aug. 18 filing (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 20-03914). In his June opinion, Judge M. Miller Baker found that the importers didn't support their theory that CBP didn't comply with the objective "reasonable mind" standard. Baker said that the importers' lack of access to all the confidential information in the suit does not constitute a due process violation (see 2306300033).
Importer Skyview Cabinet USA will appeal a June ruling by the Court of International Trade that it evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to an Aug. 18 filing (Skyview Cabinet USA v. U.S., CIT # 22-00080). In June, CIT upheld the results of an Enforce and Protect Act investigation of Skyview that found the company had evaded AD by claiming the goods were made by Malaysia-based manufacturer Rowenda Kitchen (See 2109300059). In his June opinion, Judge Stephen Vaden said CBP had correctly found that inconsistencies in submissions were enough for Commerce to find Skyview's submission non-credible and that the record backed the evasion finding (see 2306200059).
The Court of International Trade upheld July remand results from the Commerce Department that saw the weighted-average dumping margin for antidumping duty respondent Suzano drop from 32.31% to 8.63%. The remand was the second in a case challenging the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain uncoated paper from Brazil (Suzano S.A. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00069).
The Court of International Trade denied a government motion for judgment and ruled in favor of the defendant, American Home Assurance Company (AHAC), in a case centered on when the six-year statute of limitations begins for customs bonds, according to an Aug. 18 judgment. Though the opinion is still confidential, the judgment shows that CIT Judge Richard Eaton denied the government's motion for summary judgment and granted AHAC's motion, thereby ending the action. All claims asserted were dismissed with prejudice and Eaton ordered that each party would bear its own costs and expenses (U.S. v. American Home Assurance Co., CIT # 20-00175).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 21 opinion sent back the Commerce Department's decision on remand to stick by its finding that questionnaires issued in lieu of on-site verification in an antidumping investigation on forged steel fittings from India satisfied the statute's verification requirement. Judge Stephen Vaden said the agency failed to consider the interests of petitioners in relying on Commerce's consistent past practice along with possible alternatives. The judge said the agency must explain what other steps closer to an on-site verification it has considered now and in 2020 and why those were rejected.