Two recent Court of International Trade decisions are relevant to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case over whether the Commerce Department properly refused to apply the finished goods exclusion to certain solar panel mounts, plaintiff-appellants China Custom Manufacturing and Greentec Engineering said in a Jan. 3 notice of supplemental authority. The CIT decisions, Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S. and Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., excluded door threshold assemblies with aluminum extrusions from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China as finished merchandise. The appellants said the decisions addressed arguments made in the present appeal (China Custom Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1345).
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 3 order granted importer WKW North America's stipulation of dismissal with prejudice in its case on the Commerce Department's finished merchandise exemption from antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China (WKW North America v. United States, CIT # 21-00072).
Importer Kyocera Document Solutions America will get refunds on Section 301 duties paid for its printer maintenance kits that were granted a tariff exclusion by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The importer filed a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade on an agreed set of facts, which say that the maintenance kits, liquidated under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8443.99.2050 and assessed Section 301 tariffs under secondary subheading 9903.88.01, fit under the exclusion.
CBP's remand results in an antiumping and countervailing duty evasion case should be sent back again since the agency "failed to provide any reasoned explanation for its treatment of confidential information or for the public summarization of such information," plaintiff Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee said in a Jan. 3 brief at the Court of International Trade (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee v. United States, CIT # 21-00129).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top 20 stories published in 2022. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference numbers.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 29 order granted the U.S. motion for leave to file a motion to dismiss an Enforce and Protect Act appeal to the extent the motion must be filed within 14 days. The U.S. asked for leave to file the motion seeing as all the entries at issue have been liquidated (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1226).
The Commerce Department illegally ignored its established practice of not reviewing the countervailability of a program in the absence of new information and its "consistent finding" in all past countervailing duty reviews that no benefit was provided from respondent KG Dongbu Steel Co.'s first three debt-equity swaps, Dongbu argued in a Dec. 27 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00047).
The Commerce Department illegally expanded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China by "reading ambiguity into the scope language when there is none," plaintiffs Vietnam Finewood, Far East American and Liberty Woods International argued in a Dec. 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The scope language clearly states there is only one category of in-scope product -- hardwood and decorative plywood -- although the U.S. says there are two general types -- hardwood and decorative plywood and certain veneered panels -- though the latter category is "not in the scope language at all," the plaintiffs said (Vietnam Finewood Company Limited v. U.S., CIT Consol. #22-00049).
The Court of International Trade should not refer to court-annexed mediation a key customs case over whether importer Meyer Corp.'s goods qualify for first-sale treatment, nor should the court retry the issue, the U.S. said in a Dec. 30 motion. Replying to Meyer's bid for a status conference on what to do next in the case, the government said the trade court should reconsider the record before it to find whether Meyer can use the first-sale price for valuing its goods without the consideration of nonmarket economy effects as mandated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Meyer Corporation v. United States, CIT # 13-00154).