The Commerce Department didn't "consider the plain language of the scope" when it found a type of aluminum sheet imported from Turkey by AA Metals to be covered by the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China, the importer said in a Feb. 22 complaint challenging a scope ruling issued by Commerce in response to a CBP covered merchandise referral in an AD/CVD evasion investigation (AA Metals v. United States, CIT #22-00051).

The Commerce Department stuck by its decision to hit affiliated antidumping respondents Ghigi 1870 and Pasta Zara with an adverse inference over their U.S. payment dates in Feb. 28 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. However, the agency dropped the adverse inference on the U.S. sales for which Commerce verified the correct date. The result, if sustained, is a weighted-average dumping margin of 91.74% for Ghigi/Zara (Ghigi 1870 S.P.A. v. United States, CIT #20-00023).

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).