The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should find that the Commerce Department's scope ruling pertaining to importer Fasteners for Retail, doing business as Siffron, was not legal, antidumping duty petitioner Magnum Magnetics argued in a Sept. 28 complaint. The scope ruling that excluded Siffron's goods from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on raw flexible magnets from China "is unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise not in accordance with law," the brief said. Commerce found that Siffron's plastic shelf dividers, consisting of a "raw flexible magnet that is bonded with an adhesive to the base of a plastic sheet that is generally T- or L-shaped," are excluded from the scope of the order (Magnum Magnetics v. United States, CIT #22-00254).
The Commerce Department cannot use one antidumping respondent's third-country sales to calculate another's constructed value profit, selling expenses and constructed export price profit since the second respondent has no means to review the underlying data to gauge its accuracy, plaintiff Hyundai Steel Company argued in a brief at the Court of International Trade. The record had many alternative sources for calculating these elements, including sources Commerce had used in the past for calculating CV profit, selling expenses and CEP profit, the brief said (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00138).
The Commerce Department properly used adverse facts available after finding that antidumping duty respondent Kumar Industries failed to provide key information on its affiliation status, instead supplying conflicting reports on whether one of its partners received income from two unnamed companies, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Kumar's bid to explain the discrepancy between the conflicting information "was unpersuasive, and even if true, failed to fully address Commerce's concerns," the brief said (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00622).
The Court of International Trade should uphold the Commerce Department's application of adverse facts available for China's Export Buyer's Credit Program after the trade court in a separate case accepted the agency's explanation of why missing information from the Chinese government was needed to verify non-use, countervailing duty petitioner American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance (AKCA) argued in comments on Commerce remand results Sept. 28 (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00110).
CBP need not allow exporter Oman Fasteners to continue to post bond instead of paying Section 232 steel and aluminum duties given the exporter's "longstanding history" of failing to honor the bonding arrangement, the U.S. said in a Sept. 28 brief at the Court of International Trade. Replying to Oman Fasteners' motion to compel the U.S. to honor a CIT order, the government argued that the plaintiff's claims are based on an "incomplete telling of the facts," and that Oman Fasteners is not entitled to the privilege of bonding, especially when it has violated the bonding arrangement via under-bonding (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT #20-00037).
The Court of International Trade in a pair of administrative orders extended both the preliminary injunction enjoining liquidation of unliquidated entries subject to the massive Section 301 litigation and the order telling the U.S. to refund duties should the Section 301 plaintiffs be successful in unassigned Section 301 challenges. In July 2021, the court temporarily suspended liquidation of the subject imports. Judge Mark Barnett extended this order via an administrative order to unassigned Section 301 cases.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department properly found that importers Worldwide Door Components' and Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion for the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the importers said in a pair of comments on Commerce's remand results. Submitting their arguments to the Court of International Trade, Worldwide and Columbia said that the trade court should uphold the agency's remand results excluding the thresholds from the orders (Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., CIT #19-00013).
CBP misclassified imports of dried botanicals that are painted, dyed or glittered, importer Second Nature Designs argued in a Sept. 26 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The botanicals were liquidated under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0604.90.6000, dutiable at 7%, though Second Nature believes they should be classified under subheading 0604.90.3000, free of duty, the complaint said (Second Nature Designs v. United States, CIT #18-00131).