The U.S., in defending its affirmative evasion finding in an Enforce and Protect Act case against Leco Supply, unlawfully seeks to rely on adverse inferences that CBP did not make while also conflating CBP's error in failing to follow its own regulations over the redaction of non-business confidential information with the due process violations that stem from its failure to follow those regulations, Leco argued. Submitting a reply brief at the Court of International Trade, Leco continues to pursue its constitutional claims against CBP's evasion proceeding while tackling the agency's evidentiary basis for the evasion finding and its use of adverse inferences (Leco Supply v. U.S., CIT #21-00136).
Country of origin cases
Oriented strand board used in door jambs imported by Composite Technology International (CTI) does not qualify as a composite material for the purposes of an exemption from antidumping and countervailing duties on wood mouldings and millwork from China (A-570-117/C-570-118), so the door jambs are subject to AD/CVD, the Commerce Department said in a recent scope ruling.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Importer Charman Manufacturing didn't evade antidumping duties on its malleable cast iron pipe fittings imported from China, CBP said in a July 5 determination. After looking into claims from Matco-Norca that Charman skirted the duties by transshipping the pipe fittings through Indonesia or Singapore, CBP said it didn't have substantial evidence proving these claims. The determination in the Enforce and Protect Act investigation is one of only a handful of times that CBP has come back with a negative evasion finding.
The Court of International Trade should deny a stay motion in a case involving the provision of electricity at less than adequate remuneration in a countervailing duty case, the South Korean government said in a brief filed July 1.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Solar cells and modules manufactured in Turkey by HT Solar are not subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China (A-570-010/C-570-011), the Commerce Department said in a recent scope ruling, The scope of the solar products orders covers only solar modules and panels assembled in China using cells from third countries, Commerce said. As the solar cells and modules from HT Solar are manufactured in Turkey, the China solar products orders do not apply, even though some of the raw materials in the cells, including wafers, are sourced from China, the agency said.
The Court of International in a July 7 opinion upheld CBP's decision to deny Shuzhen Zhong a customs broker's license. Zhong, appearing pro se and seeking to get to a passing grade of 75% or higher on a customs broker license exam, appealed the answers to two questions. Judge Jane Restani ruled that CBP's decision to deny credit for both questions was backed by substantial evidence.
The Court of International Trade properly held that President Donald Trump violated the law by revoking an exclusion on bifacial solar panels from the Section 201 safeguard duties, plaintiff-appellees led by the Solar Energy Industries Association and Invenergy Renewables said in two reply briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. SEIA, in its brief, along with Nextera Energy, argued that the trade court correctly found that "all the tools of statutory construction" show that the law prevents trade-restrictive changes to the safeguard measure (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1392).
The Commerce Department submitted its remand results July 5 in an antidumping duty review challenge originally brought by Risen Energy Co. at the Court of International Trade. Commerce switched its positions on applying adverse facts available over unreported factors of production data -- reverting to neutral facts available -- and on how to value silver paste using Malaysian surrogate data. The agency stuck by its positions, though, on how to value backsheets and ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) using surrogate data. The latter two positions remain contested by the plaintiffs, but they consented to Commerce's switch on the FOP data and silver paste (Risen Energy Co., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03743).