A status report on Chinese steel exporter Ninestar’s request to be taken off the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List (see 2404150051) is due on June 3, Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann said in a May 8 scheduling order. Briefing on the exporter’s motion for judgment will remain stayed until further court order (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
Canadian Lumber Exporter Says It Isn’t Barred from Bringing Case to CIT During Separate NAFTA Appeal
A Canadian exporter of softwood lumber said in a May 2 reply brief that its appeal to a NAFTA panel shouldn’t foreclose it from seeking entirely different relief at the Court of International Trade (Resolute FP Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00095).
The Court of International Trade on May 8 sent back the Commerce Department's treatment of antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum's raw material costs and hedging revenues due to issues in how the agency addressed the elements contemporaneously in the AD investigation on aluminum foil from Turkey.
In a May 9 ruling, Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly held that importer Kent Displays’ children’s e-writing tablets from China were finished electronic goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8543, as the government argued, not duty-free LCD screens under heading 9301, as the importer claimed. The holding mooted the dispute about whether Kent’s entry was exempt from Section 301 duties, as at the time the goods were imported, the tariff doesn't cover the relevant tariff subheading. Instead, the importer will owe a 2.6% duty (Kent Displays v. U.S., CIT # 20-00156).
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public May 9 sustained parts and remanded parts of the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. Judge Claire Kelly remanded the Commerce Department's decisions regarding its "solar glass and air freight valuations and its "methodology for calculating" adverse facts available. The judge sustained exporter Trina Solar's separate rate status; valuation of electricity, ocean freight, backsheet and ethylene vinyl acetate for the plaintiffs, led by Jinko Solar Import and Export Co.; use of JA Solar Malaysia's financial statements to set surrogate financial ratios; deduction of Section 301 duties from U.S. price; and use of AFA against the plaintiffs.
Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden is among 13 federal judges who signed a May 6 letter to Columbia University President Minouche Shafik saying they won't hire any Columbia University law students as clerks, starting with the entering 2024 class, as a result of the university's response to the student protests regarding the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. Vaden is the only CIT judge to sign the letter.
The U.S. swapped out its lead attorney in a case challenging CBP's denial of a Section 301 exclusion for its entries of "steel side protective attachments for motor vehicles, specifically side bars, fern bars, and bars." The government said Brandon Kennedy, a DOJ trade trial attorney, took the place of Edward Kenny, senior trial counsel at DOJ. The case was brought by importer MKI Enterprise Group, doing business as Winbo USA, to challenge CBP's denial of its protest seeking Section 301 exclusions the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative granted for "side protective attachments" (see 2404220057) (MKI Enterprise Group v. United States, CIT # 22-00131).
The Court of International Trade in a text-only order instructed importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Supply, to address "whether the court has jurisdiction to review the denial of a protest if the basis for the denial" is that CBP was "simply following" the Commerce Department's instructions (Acquisition 362 v. United States, CIT # 24-00011).
The Commerce Department was wrong to deduct Section 301 duties from an exporter’s U.S. price as part of its antidumping duty calculation, that exporter said May 3 in defense of an earlier motion for judgment. It said Section 301 duties aren’t “normal import duties,” but rather remedial “special” duties that statute requires be included in export price calculations (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00068).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.