Consistent classification of imported child safety seats for bicycles as seats rather than bicycle parts by the port of New York/Newark constitutes a "treatment" by CBP, Court of International Trade Judge Leo Gordon ruled in a March 24 opinion, granting summary judgment for importer Kent International. CBP classified some of the seats under subheading 8714.99.80 "other" bicycle parts, which carried a 10% duty rate. Kent claimed that the items were seats under the duty-free subheading 9401.80 and that CBP had violated the treatment provision with its classifications.
The Court of International Trade on March 20 denied motions for judgment from both an importer and the government in a case involving the valuation of allegedly defective plywood. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves found that "genuine issues of material fact exist" as to the salvage value of the plywood, whether all the plywood was indeed defective, whether the importer, Bral, can tie the defective plywood to specific entries, and how the defects violate the underlying contract with the supplier.
The Court of International Trade sustained three antidumping and countervailing duty cases March 20, and uphold parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's determination in a fourth. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves decided all four cases.
The Court of International Trade upheld the U.S. Trade Representative's Lists 3 and 4A tariff action under Section 301 on China in a widely-anticipated decision on March 17. After the tariffs were previously sent back over concerns of compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act, the USTR offered further explanations of its tariff decisions. Judges Mark Barnet, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves held that these explanations were not made impermissibly post hoc and cleared APA requirements.
The Court of International Trade on March 16 upheld the International Trade Commission's finding of critical circumstances in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on small vertical shaft engines from China because of a surge in imports shortly before the antidumping and countervailing duties took effect. Judge M. Miller Baker ruled against plaintiff MTD Products' arguments that the ITC used faulty data and improperly weighed the data it did use. MTD said the ITC based its findings on export data subject to large lead times, inaccurate comparison periods and artificial increases in volume due to COVID-19. Baker said the "court will not second-guess" the ITC's findings.
The Court of International Trade on March 16 upheld the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation into aluminum sheet from Turkey. Judge M. Miller Baker said that Commerce "easily" defeated respondent Teknik Aluminyum Sanayi's challenge to Commerce's use of a questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification since Teknik cited no authority requiring the agency to carry out a certain verification procedure during a global pandemic. Baker also upheld Commerce's use of partial adverse facts available over Teknik's failure to submit screenshots of audited financial statements and ledgers, citing Teknik's failure to submit certain information in the form and manner requested.
The Commerce Department can legally deduct Section 232 duties from an exporter's U.S. price in antidumping proceedings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled March 15. Judges Richard Taranto, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham held that President Donald Trump's Proclamation 9705 imposing the duties made clear the tariffs were meant to be added to any applicable antidumping duties. The appellate court also clarified that this ruling applies only to Proclamation 9705 duties and not all presidential action taken under Section 232.
The Court of International Trade ruled March 13 that CBP properly classified as steel tubing, not insulating fittings, the carbon steel tubing lined with epoxy coating imported by Shamrock Building Materials. Judge Timothy Stanceu said the "uncontested facts show" that the subject merchandise is not, as Shamrock claimed, insulating material under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8547 per the meaning of that term as used in the heading's description.
The Court of International Trade issued a pair of opinions on March 10. In one, brought by Printing Textiles, Judge Timothy Stanceu dismissed the customs action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The company filed the case under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, challenging CBP's denial of its protests on its Canvas Banner Matisse coated fabric. Printing Textiles said that the entries weren't subject to the antidumping order and that the Commerce Department had initiated a scope request on the company's imports. Stanceu said jurisdiction could have been available under Section 1581(a) or Section 1581(c) should Commerce find the imports to be in the scope of the order.
The Court of International Trade in a March 10 upheld the Commerce Department's final scope decision that antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China cover a type of aluminum sheet AA Metals imported from Turkey. Judge Jane Restani ruled Commerce did not just rely on the plain language of the scope alone but considered various (k)(1) factors. AA Metals claimed it wasn't given a chance to remedy a deficiency on the record, leading the agency to include its imports under the orders. Restani said AA Metals' answers had no such deficiencies and Commerce has no obligation to vet corrections every time it makes a decision in conflict with a party's position.