The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 21 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that Commerce legally found the provision of port usage rights at the Port of Incheon to respondent Hyundai Steel Co. to be a countervailable benefit and found the reduction for sewerage fees program was not countervailable.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 17 again declined to allow a government counterclaim to proceed in an importer's denied protest case, redesignating it as a defense, but Judge Gary Katzmann appeared to leave the door open for the government to collect additional duties from the importer. In the case, which involves the classification of dried botanicals, CIT for the fourth time in just over two years said the government can't file counterclaims in cases brought by importers to challenge denied protests. However, should the government convince the court of its preferred classification as a defense, importer Second Nature Designs "may be liable to the Government for increased duties," Katzmann said in a footnote to the opinion.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 16 denied a motion by importer Wanxiang America to dismiss a penalty case related to misclassification and failure to pay antidumping duties on tapered roller bearings. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled that the importer's failure to abide by a CBP notice of action could be considered negligence or gross negligence, even though the notice of action wasn't binding on Wanxiang's subsequent entries. Katzmann also found misclassifications can constitute false statements subject to Section 1592 penalties, though he noted Wanxiang's "well-founded concerns" that mere classification disagreements shouldn't rise to the level of a penalty. He also declined to dismiss a count of negligence based on Wanxiang's arguments that a key scope ruling identifying the importer's goods a subject to antidumping duties had not yet been released.
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 15 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping case in which the agency continued to rely on respondent Dillinger France's normal books and records as facts otherwise available to fill in missing cost of production data for prime and non-prime plate. Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce's reliance on the exporter's normal books and records as facts otherwise available was not contrary to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in this case, despite that court finding the respondent's normal books did not reasonably reflect the costs linked with the production of other merchandise. Katzmann said evidence shows that "more than a mere scintilla" supports Dillinger's normal books and records as being "probative" of the missing cost information.
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 11 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation into forged steel fluid end blocks from India. Commerce said on remand that a questionnaire, issued in lieu of on-site verification for sole mandatory respondent Bharat Forge Limited, properly replaced on-site verification after initially saying it did not. Judge Stephen Vaden said the agency's decision does not comport with the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, which said that on remand, an agency can either take new action or further explain its position. Vaden ruled that Commerce cannot "short circuit the procedural requirements for new agency action" by reversing itself and asserting that it verified Bharat's information.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Aug. 3 opinion reversed the Court of International Trade's decision tossing a $5.7 million customs penalty suit from the U.S. against importer Katana Racing for lack of jurisdiction. The trade court said Katana properly revoked a statute of limitations waiver, making the government's suit untimely. However, Judges Sharon Prost, Alvin Schall and Todd Hughes said the statute of limitations "is not a jurisdictional time limit" and instead provides an "affirmative defense" that can be waived. While the appellate court said CIT erred in tossing the suit for lack of jurisdiction, Katana is still free to claim that its statute of limitations waiver was void as part of an affirmative defense.
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 3 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's decision to grant a constructed export price offset to the mandatory respondents in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. In the review, Commerce said the respondents' quantitative analyses were deficient, but because the agency had not told the respondent that it required more information, it granted the offsets. Judge Timothy Reif sent back the case "in view of Commerce's failure in the instant case to comply with its" statutory obligations.
The Court of International Trade in a July 28 order upheld CBP's finding on remand that importer Diamond Tools Technology didn't evade the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from China. The evasion finding applies to DTT's imports of diamond sawblades assembled in Thailand but made with Chinese cores and segments brought in before Dec. 1, 2017. CBP made the decision under respectful protest on remand upon finding that DTT did not make false statements to the agency given the court's interpretation of Commerce's understanding of the scope.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a key July 27 opinion held that CBP violated importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's rights to due process by refusing to allow it access to business confidential information in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion proceeding. The court ruled that the "relatively immutable" principle of due process, where the government must provide access to the evidence used as the basis for an action that seriously injures an individual, extends to administrative proceedings. Judge Timothy Dyk, the author of the opinion, said the court is aware of no such court holding showing that business confidential information is exempt from this rule, adding there is no "legitimate government interest" in refusing to provide access to this information in Enforce and Protect Act cases. The court also said there is no case supporting the government's "extraordinary theory" that it can avoid due process compliance by failing to provide for a protective order.
The Court of International Trade in a July 21 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. Judge Mark Barnett issued the opinion in a case consolidating three challenges -- one led by respondent Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., one by respondent Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co. and one from petitioner Calgon Carbon Corp. Barnett sustained Commerce's surrogate values for six activated carbon inputs: carbonized material, coal tar, hydrochloric acid, steam, ocean freight and bituminous coal. The judge also upheld the calculation of surrogate financial ratios and Commerce's acceptance of Datong Juqiang's reporting of its bituminous coal consumption.