The Court of International Trade should deny a government motion to amend a complaint and toss the action with respect to a single entry, American Home Assurance Company (AHAC) said in an Aug. 14 motion. DOJ is seeking antidumping duties and interest on eight single transaction bonds issued over 20 years ago (U.S. v. American Home Assurance Co., CIT # 20-00175).
Ben Perkins
Ben Perkins, Assistant Editor, is a reporter with International Trade Today and its sister publications, Trade Law Daily and Export Compliance Daily, where he covers sanctions, court rulings, and other international trade issues. He previously worked as a trade analyst for a Washington D.C. advisory firm. Ben holds a B.A. in English from the University of New Hampshire and an M.A. in International Relations from American University. Ben joined the staff of Warren Communications News in 2022.
CBP miscalculated antidumping duty payments on imported crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwain, ignored prior disclosure payments by importer URE NSP, and then partially denied a protest seeking those refunds, said URE NSP in an Aug. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade (URE NSP Corporation v. U.S. CBP, CIT # 23-00154). The company asked the court to order a refund of about $311,00 plus interest for overpayment of duties.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 15 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade issued an order last week halting liquidation of imported wooden cabinets and vanities from China that were the subject of an Enforce and Protect Act investigation into possible evasion by importer Scioto Valley Woodworking (American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance v. U.S., CIT # 23-00140).
The Commerce Department ignored a Court of International Trade remand order to reconsider the use of adverse facts against antidumping duty respondent Meihua and restated arguments on remand that the CIT had already rejected (see 2306280043), Meihua said in its Aug. 11 remand comments at CIT. Consolidated plaintiffs Deosen Biochemical and Jianlong Biotechnology raised separate issues with the remand in their own comments (Meihua Group International (Hong Kong) v. U.S., CIT # 22-00069).
The Commerce Department acted contrary to law and remand instructions by the Court of International Trade when it continued to use adverse facts against Risen Energy for its alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP), Risen argued in Aug. 11 remand comments. The exporter accused Commerce of using "delay tactics" by continuously refusing to verify the non-use of the EBCP by Risen's customers after multiple remands and the vast majority of Risen's customers complying with Commerce despite burdensome verifications (Risen Energy v. U.S., CIT # 20-03912).
CBP's attempts to collect a 14-year-old bond for antidumping duties on Chinese garlic shouldn't be thrown out because a change in tactic by the government didn't fundamentally alter the responsibilities of the bond issuer, DOJ argued in an Aug. 10 reply at the Court of International Trade (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance, CIT # 20-03628).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 14 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Commerce Department's continued use of the Cohen's d test on remand in an antidumping duty case included data that didn't meet the test's statistical criteria, exporter SeAH Steel said in its Aug. 9 remand comments at the Court of International Trade. Commerce cherry-picked data samples out of context to support its arguments and then failed to provide an explanation of how the department's use of the d test showed a pattern of SeAH’s U.S. prices that differed significantly among purchasers, regions or periods, SeAH said. SeAH asked the court to again remand the case to Commerce for reconsideration, especially regarding the limitations on the "reasonable use of Cohen’s d test" (Nexteel Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 18-00083).