The Court of International Trade agreed to dismiss importer Strato's customs suit on the classification of the company's parts of railway or tramway locomotives or rolling stock, hooks and other coupling devices, buffer and parts thereof. Strato filed the suit to claim that its goods were substantially transformed and thus should not be hit with Section 301 duties. The U.S. agreed with the dismissal of the action but no reason was provided for why the suit was ditched (Strato v. United States, CIT # 23-00142).
Importer Under the Weather's response to the U.S. motion to dismiss its customs suit on backpacking tents "rests on legal misunderstandings and a pleading standard that was abrogated over a decade ago," the government said in a Nov. 16 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The U.S. said the issue in the case is not whether it is "theoretically possible for a claim to exist" but whether Under the Weather plausibly alleged that a one-sentence approval from an import specialist was the "functional equivalent of a protest review" (Under the Weather v. United States, CIT # 21-00211).
Solar cell importer Greentech Energy Solution cannot argue both that it suffered no injury on its goods until CBP issued a notice of action and that it was not required to file a protest with CBP since the agency's actions were purely ministerial, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 16 reply brief supporting its motion to dismiss. Addressing Greentech's claims that its actions were not untimely nor improperly brought under Section 1581(i), the Court of International Trade's "residual" jurisdiction, the government said Greentech's Administrative Procedure Act claim must identify the specific final agency action it is challenging (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).
The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 17 opinion sustained the International Trade Commission's final affirmative critical circumstances determination on raw honey from Vietnam, which led to the retroactive imposition of duties due to the timing and volume of imports. Judge Leo Gordon said "the four corners of the record do not support" the legal or evidentiary claims from importers, led by Sweet Harvest Foods. The judge said the plaintiffs failed to convince the court that the phrase "order to be issued" in the statutory mandate means ITC must find that imports are "likely to undermine seriously the remedial effect of the antidumping order to be issued." The importers also failed to convince the judge "how or why the statute would limit the time period" for the analysis to only the 90-day retroactive period instead of having it mirror the same period Commerce Department reviewed in its analysis.
The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 17 opinion remanded parts of the Commerce Department's 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. Judge Jane Restani again sent back Commerce's use of adverse facts available against respondent Risen Energy for its supposed use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, saying the agency imposed an "onerous level of certification" on Risen because the requirements "impede good faith efforts by respondents to comply." In addition, Restani sent back Commerce's land benchmark formula, which the agency came up with on remand, for violating the remand order's scope.
The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 15 opinion partially ended an antidumping duty case for one of two plaintiffs, German exporter Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech, since its claims already have been resolved by the court. Salzgitter challenged the use of adverse facts available on its sales for which the company could not identify or report the manufacturer in the AD investigation of cut-to-length carbon and alloy steel plate from Germany.
Antidumping and countervailing duty petitioner Magnum Magnetics Corp. will appeal a September Court of International Trade decision excluding importer Siffron's plastic shelf dividers from the AD/CVD orders on raw flexible magnets from China. In the opinion, the trade court said the Commerce Department reasonably found that the scope language and the (k)(1) sources, including prior scope rulings and an International Trade Commission report, established that the dividers didn't belong in the scope of the orders (see 2309260049). The petitioner said in its Nov. 14 notice of appeal that it will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Magnum Magnetics Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00254).
The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for a voluntary remand on Nov. 15 in an Enforce and Protect Act case so it can consider the appellate court's decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In that decision, the Federal Circuit said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not giving it access to the business confidential information in the proceeding (see 2307270038) (American Pacific Plywood v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2321).
Importer Midwest Air Technologies' swaged line and corner posts should be classified as parts for structures under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 7308, and not under a heading 7306 as "other tubes," Midwest Air said in a Nov. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The company said that a prior customs ruling covering "the same or substantially similar merchandise" shows that swaged line and corner posts fit under heading 7308 and not 7306, freeing the company of Section 232 steel and aluminum duty liability (Midwest Air Technologies v. United States, CIT # 23-00240).
The Commerce Department again failed to adhere to the Court of International Trade's order concerning the agency's phosphate rock benefit calculations regarding countervailing duty respondent JSC Apatit's mining rights, exporter Phosagro and its affiliate, Apatit, argued in remand comments at the trade court. The companies said that the remand results, which didn't make any changes to its position in the CVD investigation of phosphate fertilizers from Russia, ignored the court's mandate regarding Commerce's use of Apatit's Profit Before Tax figure in its profit ratio instead of its Gross Profit Figure (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00117).