‘Vague’ Scope Order Violates Due Process, Art Supplies Importer Says
The “vague and open-ended” language of a scope order on artist canvas from China makes the order unconstitutional, having caused the “absurd” result of levying antidumping duties on importers without advance notice, an importer told the Court of International Trade on June 24 in defense of its motion for judgment (see 2402270079) (Printing Textiles, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00192).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Importer Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, said that this also was in part due to “Commerce’s interpretive scope rulings.”
“With Commerce’s continual language shifting, it did not write the Order with sufficient detail so as to provide Berger adequate notice,” it said.
Printing Textiles also said that “photographs and descriptions from etailers” that it provided in its motion for judgment (see 2402270079) to show Commerce's "scope creep" was “generally known,” and, thus, should be considered as evidence by the trade court.
The company said courts can take judicial notice of anything “not subject to reasonable dispute” if the fact is either “generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction” or “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Further, a court is actually required to take judicial notice of that fact “if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.”
Otherwise, the importer said it stood by the arguments it made in the motion for judgment it filed in February. The U.S.'s and petitioners' replies "did not change these conclusions,” it said (see 2404260044).