The U.S. "consistently fails to consider" the filing of a collection action in the Court of International Trade as a valid "'demand' for liquidated duties," surety firm Aegis Security Insurance Co. told the trade court in an Aug. 30 reply brief. Given this failure, the government is illegally trying to limit the concept of "demand" to the issuance of a bill in its attempt to get Aegis to pay a customs bond on entries that liquidated in 2006, the brief said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 20-03628).
Importer Cambridge Isotope Laboratories told the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 30 letter as part of its customs suit that it filed a request for a changed circumstances review with the Commerce Department. In the customs case, Cambridge Isotopes said an enriched ammonium sulfate isotope was incorrectly placed within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ammonium sulfate from China (see 2304280022). The changed circumstances review concerns the enriched 15N ammonium sulfate isotope (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. United States, CIT # 23-00080).
A recent legal case in the EU helped clear up how the European Commission considers the factors it points to when identifying if a company has evaded antidumping duties, said Simran Sethi, senior manager at OCR Global Trade Management Software Solutions, during an Aug. 30 webinar. Speaking to the importance of import compliance in light of recent judicial developments in the U.S. and abroad, Sethi laid out the four criteria the commission considers when making its evasion findings.
Door thresholds imported by Worldwide Door Components and Columbia Aluminum Products are both expressly and generally within the scope of antidumping and countervailing orders on aluminum extrusions from China, petitioner Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee said in an Aug. 29 reply at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1532) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1534).
Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel, TexTrail and TRAILSTAR evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on imported steel trailer wheels from China, CBP concluded in the results of a recently released Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) investigation. CBP found that the three importers had entered steel wheels using false statements that they didn't contain covered merchandise even though the importers contended that they believed the wheels were out of scope.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. backed the Commerce Department's valuation of exporter Jilin Bright Future Chemical's inputs of bituminous coal and coal tar as part of the 2020-21 review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. Filing its response to Jilin Bright's claims (see 2306080054) at the Court of International Trade, the government argued that the exporter failed to dispute Commerce's formula for converting useful heat value (UHV) to gross calorific value (GCV) as part of the BT coal valuation at the administrative level. As a result, Jilin Bright did not exhaust its administrative remedies, the brief said (Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00336).
Exporter Tau-Ken Temir waived its arguments against the Commerce Department's decision to grant the company's first two extension requests in part and reject the third request, the U.S. argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government said that because TKT did not raise the issues either at Commerce or at the Court of International Trade in its case on the countervailing duty investigation on silicon metal from Kazakhstan, the appellate court need not address the claims (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
The Commerce Department's use of an adverse inference against exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. for its supposed benefit from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program was "critically flawed," the Court of International Trade ruled on Aug. 25. Judge Timothy Stanceu, remanding the 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on woven ribbon from China, said that Commerce based its use of adverse facts available on "missing" information from the Chinese government that the agency never actually requested. The judge added that submissions from the Chinese state, along with Yama itself, stand as enough to refute any finding that the exporter benefitted from the EBCP.
The Commerce Department in an antidumping proceeding correctly used a bona fide sale analysis of a single sale of wooden cabinets by importer Dalian Hualing Wood (Hualing) from a linked investigation, DOJ argued in an Aug. 24 response at the Court of International Trade. The brief came in reply to a June motion for judgment, in which Hualing argued that Commerce illegally made separate determinations in linked antidumping and countervailing duty reviews (see 2306260033) (Dalian Hualing Wood Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00334).