An importer of mastectomy bras filed Nov. 21 its motion for judgment in a 2020 case (see 2107140063) arguing that its bras should have been classified by CBP as parts or accessories for artificial body parts, not as “other brassieres of manmade fiber” (Amoena USA Corp. v. U.S., CIT #20-00100).
Court of International Trade activity
Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) filed a trio of opening briefs in its three concurrent appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, all of which are seeking to account for the exclusion of exporter Colakoglu from the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Turkey in the International Trade Commission's five-year sunset review of the order.
The Commerce Department calculated a zero percent dumping margin for exporter Grupo Simec on remand at the Court of International Trade, dropping the 66.7% adverse facts available rate for the company in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete rebar from Mexico. Commerce accepted submissions from the exporter on remand after the trade court said the agency unreasonably declined an extension request from the company (Grupo Acecero v. United States, CIT # 22-00202).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Nov. 21 on AD/CVD proceedings:
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
Importer Coulisse Distribution voluntarily dismissed its customs suit at the Court of International Trade on its DC (direct current) electric motors, filing a notice of dismissal Nov. 14. Coulisse filed the suit seeking an exclusion from Section 301 duties under Harmonized Tariff Schedule secondary subheading 9903.88.67. The motors were classified under subheading 8501.10.4060, dutiable at 4.4%, and secondary subheading 9903.88.01. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to our request for comment (Coulisse Distribution v. U.S., CIT # 23-00245).
A plaintiff and defendant-intervenor provided lukewarm responses to the Commerce Department’s new results on remand for its antidumping duty review on granular polytetrafluorethylene resin from India (see 2407120016), each supporting it in part (Daikin America v. United States, CIT # 22-00122).
Responding to tapered roller bearing exporters’ August motion for judgment that cited Loper Bright to challenge the Commerce Department’s use of Cohen’s d test in administrative reviews, the U.S. said Nov. 14 that the department still exercises significant discretion in antidumping and countervailing duty matters (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00025).
Solar Exporters, Importers Say Relief Sought in Suit on SE Asian Solar Cell Duty Pause 'Inequitable'
Solar exporters and importers, led by the American Clean Power Association, said a suit challenging the Commerce Department's duty pause on solar cells and modules from four Southeast Asian countries is "moot" due to a failure to identify an injury that would be redressable through the retroactive imposition of AD/CVD (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).
The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over importer Retractable Technologies' suit against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 rate hike on needles and syringes, given that the court has already acknowledged its ability to hear cases on agency action taken under presidential direction, Retractable said. Responding to the government's motion to dismiss the case Nov. 19, Retractable pointed to the trade court's recent decision in the case granting a preliminary injunction (PI) on the liquidation of the importer's entries subject to the duties (Retractable Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 24-00185).