The Court of International Trade ruled April 22 that filling out a single mandatory importer questionnaire response at the beginning of an International Trade Commission injury investigation isn’t enough for an importer to establish itself as a party to the proceeding.
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.
Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xiang) Industry Co. has constitutional and statutory standing to challenge a withhold release order on silica-based products made by its parent company, Hoshine Silicon, or its subsidiaries, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public April 22. However, Judge Claire Kelly dismissed Jiaxing Hoshine's claim against CBP's issuance of the WRO for being untimely, finding that it was brought after the statute of limitations had run out.
The Court of International Trade on April 23 denied exporter Kumar Industries' challenge to the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from China, India and Japan. Judge Gary Katzmann said the Commerce Department reasonably used adverse facts available against Kumar for its failure to respond to the best of its ability in establishing that it's not affiliated with two unnamed companies. The judge also sustained Commerce's decision to deduct antidumping and countervailing duties from Kumar's U.S. price for only three transactions, given evidence showing that Kumar didn't include AD/CVD for these sales.
The Court of International Trade on April 22 denied a group of five companies' application for a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani held that the companies "have not clearly shown a likelihood that immediate and irreparable harm would occur" before the court considers their motion for a preliminary injunction against the tariffs.
Importers van Gelder Inc. and Baker Hughes Pressure Control each dropped their customs suit at the Court of International Trade last week. Van Gelder had filed suit to challenge the classification of its vinyl tiles floor covering, seeking an exclusion from Section 301 China tariffs (see 2405060033). Meanwhile, Baker Hughes had launched its case to claim that its steel parts of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7326.90.8588, dutiable at 2.9%, should be classified under subheadings 8481.90.9085 and 8431.43.4000, free of duty (see 2306300068). Counsel for both importers didn't respond to requests for comment (van Gelder Inc. v. United States, CIT # 21-00160) (Baker Hughes Pressure Control v. United States, CIT # 23-00137).
The Court of International Trade on April 19 denied a group of Canadian lumber exporters' bid to have the court explicitly state CBP's obligation to refund countervailing duty cash deposits established by the court in a previous decision. Judge Mark Barnett said the exporters haven't shown that there was any clerical or other mistake in the court's previous order and that "the equities do not favor granting" this requested relief.
CIT Says Several Components, Finishing Work for Sinks Shouldn't Have Been Included in Dutiable Value
The value of sink components and finishing work that either (1) wasn’t covered under the relevant antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders, or, (2) didn’t originate in China, shouldn’t have been included in the sinks’ dutiable value because the orders' language didn't specifically include them, Court of International Trade Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled April 21. However, packaging costs should have been, she said.
Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif on April 22 granted a motion to dismiss importer Pay Less’ challenge to the International Trade Commission’s affirmative critical circumstances finding regarding Burmese-origin mattresses. The importer never filed an entry of appearance in the underlying injury investigation, and it overall failed to clear the “low bar” required to establish itself as a party to the proceeding, he ruled (Pay Less Here v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 24-00152).
The Court of International Trade cannot order the reliquidation of finally liquidated entries except where a protest has been filed or a civil action has been filed challenging an antidumping duty or countervailing duty determination, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on April 21. Judges Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen held that the statute, 19 U.S.C. 1514, doesn't let the trade court order reliquidation based on equitable considerations.