The U.S. and defendant-intervenors each replied Nov. 26 to importer CME Acquisition’s August motion for judgment (see 2408220024). They argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has put the burden on exporters to show that averaged adverse facts available rates for non-selected respondents via the expected method is unreasonable (CME Acquisitions v. United States, CIT # 24-00032).

The Court of International Trade has personal jurisdiction over exporter Koehler Oberkirch in the government's customs penalty suit against the exporter, since it's a successor to the company that owes nearly $200 million in unpaid antidumping duties, the U.S. said. Responding to Koehler's motion to dismiss, the U.S. said Koehler doesn't question that its allegations establish that Koehler Oberkirch's "spin-off" to Koehler Paper was "done to escape paying" the duties (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch, CIT # 24-00014).

Foreign-trade zone goods become "importations" for duty drawback purposes when they are admitted into an FTZ, rather than when they are entered for consumption into the U.S., the government told the Court of International Trade on Nov. 27, urging it to dismiss a lawsuit from importer King Maker Marketing challenging the rejection of its duty drawback claims. As a result, King Maker's drawback claims are untimely, since they were brought over five years since the underlying cigarette entries were admitted into the FTZ, the government said (King Maker Marketing v. United States, CIT # 24-00134).

Exporter Chandan Steel Limited will appeal a decision from the Court of International Trade sustaining the 145.25% total adverse facts available rate set against the exporter in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on steel flanges from India (see 2312110043). The Commerce Department said Chandan repeatedly misreported its foreign sales information and the costs of production for those foreign sales. The court upheld the use of AFA to address these misrepresentations, noting that Chandan's responses also had additional deficiencies related to its reporting of gross unit price, quantity discounts, other discounts and duty refunds. The trade court then rejected Chandan Steel's motion for reconsideration of the decision (see 2410030013) (Chandan Steel Limited v. United States, CIT # 21-00540).

Importer PowerTec Solutions filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 25 seeking refunds of Section 301 duties paid on its power supplies and cables (PowerTecSolutions International v. United States, CIT # 22-00322).

The U.S. said Nov. 22 that a vehicle parts importer “misrepresented multiple primary sources” when it argued that, as a petitioner for antidumping and countervailing duty orders on chassis from China, it hadn’t intended Chinese-origin components used in chassis from another country be included (see 2403070060) (Pitts Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00030).

The Court of International Trade granted an unopposed motion for partial final judgment Nov. 26, sustaining the antidumping duty rate calculated for exporter Kenda Rubber (China) Co. in the 2016-17 review of the AD order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. Judge Mark Barnett said the rate is "unchallenged and otherwise appears supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law" (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).

Brandon Chen, who took the April 2022 customs broker license exam, appealed the final results of his exam to the Court of International Trade, contesting 11 questions that CBP denied him credit for. Filing a complaint at the trade court on Nov. 25, Chen noted that he is only two correct answers away from a passing score of 75% (Brandon Chen v. U.S., CIT # 24-00208).

Importers Struxtur and Evolutions Flooring will appeal a Court of International Trade case on the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. The trade court sustained the Commerce Department's decision to weight average zero percent and adverse facts available antidumping duty rates to set the AD rate for the non-individually examined respondents (see 2409180044). CIT previously remanded Commerce's decision to use a simple average of the zero and AFA rates, instructing the agency to use a weighted average of the rates. The result was a 31.63% AD rate for the separate rate companies. Importers Wego International Floors, Galleher Corp. and Galleher LLC already filed their notice of appeal in the case (see 2411120038) (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 19-00144).

Supporting its own motion for judgment (see 2407190048) in a case regarding the oft-litigated countervailing duties on South Korea’s low-cost provision of off-peak electricity (see 2406200062), the Korean government said Nov. 26 the opposition’s cited cases were distinct from the current situation (POSCO v. U.S., CIT # 24-00006).