Versace USA says CBP overcharged it customs duties by using the wrong appraisal method for merchandise moved between Versace's Canadian and U.S. warehouses, according to a complaint it filed Feb. 25. Versace says CBP used the transaction value method based on prices on a pro forma invoice, but those prices "were the suggested Canadian retail sales prices of the merchandise," and "Versace USA did not pay the prices stated on the pro forma invoice." CBP should have relied on the value of identical or similar merchandise, Versace said. CBP denied Versace's protest in 2017 (Versace USA Inc. v. U.S., CIT #18-00034).
A pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade, one filed by Calgon Carbon and the other by Carbon Activated Tianjin, argue that the Commerce Department picked the wrong surrogate data in a recent administrative review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China (Calgon Carbon Corporation v. U.S., CIT #22-00025) (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00017).
South Korean manufacturer Hyundai Steel Co. launched a challenge at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea. In the review, Commerce said that Hyundai received a countervailable benefit through the issuance of carbon emissions permits for less than adequate remuneration (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT #22-00029).
CBP wrongly classified animal antibiotic chlortetracycline concentrate feed grade powder (CTC concentrate), resulting in the imposition of Section 301 China tariffs on the imports, Zoetis Services said in a Feb. 24 complaint at the Court of International Trade. While CBP classified the powder as a feed preparation, Zeotis says it should have classified it has a medicament (Zoetis Services LLC v. U.S., CIT #22-00056).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Feb. 24 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security granted importer CPW America Co.'s bid for exclusions from paying Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs following a remand order from the Court of International Trade. In a Feb. 23 submission, BIS said that there was not sufficient domestic U.S. capacity of line pipe to justify rejecting CPW's exclusion requests (CPW America Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00335).
Neither importer Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. nor the U.S. succeeded in persuading the Court of International Trade that their side was right in a tiff over the country of origin for shipments of uninterruptible power supplies and a surge voltage protector. Judge Leo Gordon, in a Feb. 24 order, denied both parties' motions for judgment, ordering the litigants to pick dates on which to set up a trial.
The argument that a Turkish duty drawback program fails to qualify for a drawback adjustment in an antidumping duty case disregards "decades of [Commerce Department] precedent" over the program, Turkish exporter Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret said in a Feb. 22 brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to AD petitioner Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group, Assan said that the Turkish Inward Processing Regime (IPR) has repeatedly been found by Commerce to be eligible for a duty drawback adjustment by passing the agency's two-prong analysis on drawback (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #21-00246).
The Court of International Trade denied Wheatland Tube Company's bid for a preliminary injunction in a case seeking to compel CBP to respond to requests for information relating to Section 232 evasion since Wheatland hasn't shown a likelihood to succeed on the merits. CBP already responded to Wheatland's requests for information and tariff classification ruling, so Wheatland hasn't shown how it could succeed in the case, Judge Timothy Stanceu said.
The Court of International Trade denied both importer Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc.'s and the DOJ's motions for judgment in a case over the country of origin of Cyber Power's uninterruptible power supplies and surge voltage protector, ordering that the case go to trial. For these imports, many of their components came from China but were completed in the Philippines. Judge Leo Gordon said that the U.S. failed to show that the process in the Philippines constituted a "simple assembly" but also that Cyber Power failed to show that the goods were "substantially transformed" in the Philippines enough change their origin. The judge gave the parties until March 7 to submit a proposed scheduling order to lay out the next steps for a trial.