In a Dec. 3 motion for judgment before the Court of International Trade, domestic producer Edsal Manufacturing again (see 2407120060) said that the Commerce Department should have used the more comparable surrogate it suggested in an antidumping duty investigation on boltless steel shelves from Thailand (Edsal Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00108).
Court of International Trade activity
The government's cause of action against a surety runs from the date the surety breached the demand for payment on a customs bond and not from the date of liquidation, or deemed liquidation, of the underlying entries covered by the bond, the U.S. argued. Filing a cross-motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 9, the U.S. said it timely filed its case because the suit was brought within six years from the date surety firm Aegis Security Insurance Co. was delinquent on an over $100,000 bill for unpaid duties (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Dec. 10 sustained the Commerce Department's calculation of industry support in deciding to open the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, South Korea and Russia. After remanding the issue for Commerce to address potential double counting in its calculation, Judge Claire Kelly said the agency sufficiently addressed contrary evidence in finding there to be enough domestic support to launch the proceedings. The judge also said importers led by Tenaris Bay City failed to administratively exhaust more specific claims regarding potential undercounting and commingling of the producers and processors in the industry support data used by Commerce.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 10 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Surety firm American Alternative Insurance Corp. filed a cross-claim in a customs penalty suit brought by the U.S. against importer Repwire, its manager Jose Pigna and the surety. On Dec. 9, American Alternative Insurance told the Court of International Trade that Repwire and Pigna should be compelled to pay the over $13 million penalty and that the company and its manager "are obligated to indemnify" the insurance company for the amount of duties and fees being demanded (United States v. Repwire, CIT # 24-00173).
Importer Fine Emeralds will get refunds for duties paid on its rough, unworked emerald stones, the company announced in a stipulated judgment filed on Dec. 9 at the Court of International Trade. While the emeralds were assessed 10.5% duties under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7103.10.40, the government agreed to classify the products under subheading 7103.10.20, free of duty. Fine Emeralds' preferred subheading covers uncorked precious stones (Fine Emeralds v. U.S., CIT # 20-03928).
Chinese-origin countertop importer Superior Commercial Solutions argued Dec. 6 it hadn’t waived its challenge to the CBP regulation that allows it to initiate Enforce and Protect Act investigations based on a petition’s “date of receipt,” which is determined by the agency (Superior Commercial Solutions v. United States, CIT # 24-00052).
The Commerce Department didn't properly explain its approach to its surrogate financial ratio calculation in the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Dec. 9. Judges Timothy Dyk and Kara Stoll said Commerce failed to provide an "adequate explanation" regarding its treatment of overhead costs in coming up with the surrogate financial ratio.
Various U.S. manufacturers dropped a pair of cases at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 5, following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision finding that the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 doesn't require payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, to affected domestic producers (see 2407150031). The appellate court said earlier this year that the act doesn't require delinquency interest payments but only payments of interest that's "earned" on antidumping and countervailing duties and "assessed" under the associated AD or CVD order. The two cases -- one led by Novolex, doing business as Hilex Poly Co. and the other by Bassett Furniture Industries -- had been stayed pending the outcome of the lead case (Bassett Furniture Industries v. U.S., CIT # 19-00073) (Novolex d/b/a Hilex Poly Co. v. U.S., CIT # 19-00074).