The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Viewtech Inc. on Nov. 16 filed a notice of dismissal in 10 of its tariff classification cases at the Court of International Trade. Filed between 2008 and 2011, the cases concerned the classification of Viewtech's digital satellite receivers. CBP liquidated the entries under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8528.12.97 or 8528.71.40, though the importer claimed they should be classified under subheadings 8528.12.92 or 8528.71.20 (Viewtech Inc. v. United States, CIT #s 08-00250, 08-00252, 08-00253, 08-00254, 09-00116, 09-00146, 09-00173, 09-00419, 10-00112, 11-00008).
Plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products submitted a notice of supplemental authority in a Court of International Trade case over the Commerce Department's refusal to initiate a successor-in-interest changed circumstances review (CCR) in a countervailing duty case. In the notice, GreenFirst alerted the court to its filing of a CCR request to find that GreenFirst is the successor-in-interest to Rayonier A.M. Canada (RYAM) in a related antidumping case. After filing in the AD case, Commerce found that information submitted supports starting a successor-in-interest CCR for AD purposes (GreenFirst Forest v. U.S., CIT #22-00097).
The Commerce Department properly held and explained that antidumping duty respondent Dongkuk S&C Co.'s reported steel plate costs do not reasonably reflect the cost of making wind towers in an antidumping duty investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 17 opinion. Judge Leo Gordon also held that Commerce properly used exporter SeAH Steel Holdings Corp.'s 2018 consolidated financial statement as the basis for constructed value calculations for Dongkuk's profit and selling expenses.
The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 18 opinion sent back the Commerce Department's denial of plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products' request for a successor-in-interest changed circumstances review of the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada. GreenFirst applied for the CCR after it acquired Rayonier A.M. Canada and sought to get its non-selected companies' CVD rate of 6.32%. Commerce claimed that it did not start the CCR due to its "significant change" practice that it will not conduct the review where there is evidence of a significant change that could have affected the nature of subsidization. Judge Claire Kelly ruled that "it is unclear" why this practice applies since Rayonier did not have an individually calculated rate.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied appellant PrimeSource Building Products' motion for a stay in a case on an antidumping duty review on steel nails from Taiwan. The U.S. opposed the stay, which would have stopped litigation until the resolution of Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., on the grounds that the stay is "based on nothing but pure speculation as to" the appellant's desired outcome in Mid Continent (PrimeSource Building Products Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-2128).
The Court of International Trade has the jurisdiction to hear all claims brought by plaintiffs led by Bioparques de Occidente concerning the Commerce Department's continued antidumping duty investigation after a suspension agreement was terminated, the plaintiffs argued in a Nov. 14 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Bioparques de Occidente v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00204).
The Commerce Department continued to rely on antidumping duty respondent Dillinger France's normal books and records as facts otherwise available to fill in missing cost of production data. Submitting remand results on Nov. 16 to the Court of International Trade, Commerce said that using Dillinger's normal books and records to value both prime and non-prime merchandise "is the only reasonable approach" since it recognizes that where Dillinger cannot make all its merchandise perfectly, the lost value of the imperfect products is actually a cost of making the perfect goods "and should be accounted for as such" (Dillinger France S.A. v. United States, CIT #17-00159)
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 16 released the public version of its Nov. 15 opinion dismissing a conflict-of-interest suit filed by plaintiffs led by Amsted Rail Company seeking to removeDaniel Pickard and his firm Buchanan Ingersoll from an International Trade Commission injury proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled that while the court does have the jurisdiction to review the ITC's decision to grant Pickard and Buchanan access to business proprietary information (BPI), it does not have this jurisdiction under Section 1581(i) -- the court's "residual" jurisdiction. The judge left the door open for the plaintiffs to refile their case under Section 1581(c) "once a claim under" this provision "is ripe."
The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 17 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's surrogate data selection in the antidumping duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from South Korea. Judge Leo Gordon also upheld Commerce's remand results relating to steel plate cost smoothing. Previously, the court ruled that the agency must either further explain or reconsider its decision to adjust the steel plate costs for all reported control numbers. Gordon said that on remand, Commerce gave a "more thorough explanation as to how and why its cost analysis and the record" backed its decision to reject respondent Dongkuk S&C Co.'s reported steel plate costs.