The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Dec. 11 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
Country of origin cases
CBP's EAPA determination that Blue Pipe Steel Center evaded an antidumping duty order was incorrect because the Commerce Department has since ruled the imported line pipe outside the scope of the order, Blue Pipe said in a Dec. 14 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 21-00081).
The Commerce Department’s recent preliminary determination that Southeast Asian solar cells and panels are circumventing antidumping and countervailing duties (see 2212020064) left several questions unanswered, and lawyers for the Solar Energy Industries Association hope the agency will clarify these issues as the case proceeds to its final determinations, they said during a webinar Dec. 13.
An indictment was unsealed Dec. 12 in a New York district court charging five Russian nationals and two U.S. nationals for their role in a global procurement and money laundering network for the Russian government, DOJ announced. Concurrent with the indictment, the Bureau of Industry and Security issued a 180-day temporary denial order against three of the defendants and two companies for illegally sending controlled exports to Russia as part of the Moscow-led scheme.
Importer Meyer Corp. in a Dec. 9 motion asked for a status conference on how to proceed after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded its suit over the use of first sale valuation. Since the U.S. failed to respond to Meyer's attempts at contact over a joint status conference request, the importer unliterally sent in the motion, outlining two possible ways forward in the case: court-annexed mediation and retrial, both of which could help "avoid an unwieldy and unnecessarily complicated proceeding" (Meyer Corp. v. U.S., CIT #13-00154).
The only way importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, could have properly challenged a CBP decision on its entries, according to the Court of International Trade, was to file a "[p]remature, overly broad, or indefinite" protest, SIS argued in a Dec. 6 supplemental brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. But these types of protests "do not constitute a proper basis for invoking CIT jurisdiction," the importer claimed, citing a prior Federal Circuit ruling (Acquisition 362 v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1161).
The Court of International Trade in a Dec.12 opinion dismissed a suit from importer MS Solar Investments challenging the Commerce Department's liquidation instructions following an antidumping duty review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said the case is based on an error affecting the final results of the review and not a mistake in the liquidation instructions. This means the case falls under Section 1581(c) and not Section 1581(i) -- the court's "residual" jurisidiction -- as claimed by the plaintiff.
The Commerce Department properly found countervailing duty respondent Yama Ribbons and Bows received synthetic yarn and caustic soda -- inputs of narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge -- for less than adequate remuneration, the Court of International Trade held in a Dec. 8 opinion. Judge Timothy Stanceu found Commerce permissibly levied adverse facts available for the Chinese government's failure to respond to requests over the provision of the two inputs, and said the agency properly dropped its subsidy rate for China's Export Buyer's Credit Program.
The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 7 for leave to file a motion to dismiss in a case on an Enforce and Protect Act evasion finding, given that all the entries at issue have been liquidated. While Royal Brush does not oppose the motion for leave to file the dismiss bid, the appellant did tell the U.S. it will oppose the motion to dismiss itself. Prior to the appeal, the Court of International Trade had ruled CBP violated Royal Brush's due process rights by not providing adequate public summaries of confidential information (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, CIT #22-1226).
The Court of International Trade in a two-page judgment upheld the Commerce Department's decision on remand to grant Universal Tube and Plastic Industries a level of trade adjustment in an antidumping duty review. Judge Timothy Stanceu upheld the remand results after no parties filed comments on them.