The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 1 opinion rejected the U.S.' motion to partially dismiss the alternative claims of jurisdiction in a case over the Commerce Department's assessment of antidumping duties. Judge Gary Katzmann said the question of the opinion was whether a party can dismiss an alternatively pleaded ground of jurisdiction. The judge said that since the U.S.'s motion "as styled is not the proper vehicle," the motion is denied.
DOJ unsealed a 15-count indictment Nov. 29 charging Madison County, Alabama, resident Ray Hunt with conspiring to violate U.S. sanctions on Iran, defrauding the U.S., smuggling goods from the U.S., and submitting false export information, the department announced. Hunt faces a maximum penalty of up to 20 years in prison and a $1 million fine for violating U.S. sanctions against Iran, up to five years for the count of conspiracy, 10 for the smuggling charge and another five for the false information charge.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Nov. 29 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):
Returned and remanufactured engine parts should be appraised under the fallback method using the sales price of the remanufactured good, with a deduction for the average cost of repair, CBP said in a ruling dated Sept. 29 and released recently.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Nov. 30 in an antidumping case brought by Hitachi Energy USA after it denied the plaintiff-appellee's rehearing bid. In a May opinion, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Commerce Department improperly used adverse facts available on respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. over its reporting of service-related revenue. The court said Hyundai had the right to supplement the record and that Commerce can't claim the company shirked its obligations in the review (see 2205240028). Hitachi, successor to one of the original antidumping duty petitioners in the case, filed for a rehearing. In its response, the government said that it takes no position regarding the merits of the petition itself, but does argue that the court should decline the rehearing because the appeal "does not involve a matter of exceptional importance" (see 2208100008) (Hitachi Energy USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 20-2114).
CBP erred when it assessed antidumping and countervailing duties on imported sinks and kits from Taiwan as if they had originated from China, importer and seller RH Peterson said in a Nov. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade (RH Peterson Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00099).
Plaintiffs in a conflict-of-interest suit, led by Amsted Rail Co., plan to appeal the Court of International Trade's judgment dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction regardless of the outcome of their injunction motion, the plaintiffs said in a Nov. 30 response to a court order. However, ARC said that it is "mindful" that developments in the present case against the International Trade Commission and its related action against the Commerce Department "may bear on whether an appeal should be voluntarily dismissed before or after the appeal is docketed" (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).
CBP cannot rely on country trade patterns as specific evidence for evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties in Enforce and Protect Act proceedings, importer Skyview Cabinets USA argued in a Nov. 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. CBP also erred by relying on statements from a corporate investigator, paid for by the alleger in the EAPA case, that are "inconsistent with the record." While Masterbrand tries to "downplay" facts presented by Skyview by using words such as "discrepancies, deficiencies, inconsistencies, and omissions," CBP never investigated any of these perceived discrepancies as required by law, Skyview said (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, CIT #22-00080).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
An amended complaint in a conflict-of-interest case does not cure the fundamental deficiencies of the suit, the U.S. argued in a second motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. While the amended complaint included specific examples of alleged ethical violations committed by plaintiff Amsted Rail Co.'s former counsel and a declaration from an ethics expert, the case still suffers from a lack of jurisdiction, the government said (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00316).