The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Feb. 28 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Court of International Trade activity
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department has been illegally expanding the reach of an antidumping duty order on artist canvas from China over years of scope rulings for different parties, a textile company argued in a Feb. 26 motion for judgment filed with the Court of International Trade (Printing Textiles d/b/a/ Berger Textiles v. U.S., CIT # 23-00192).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 26 issued an amended decision in a customs case on the tariff classification of five categories of chrome-plated plastic automobile parts after initially deciding the case Dec. 18. The new decision adds a discussion of axle covers, the fifth category of goods, finding them to fall under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8708 pursuant to General Rule of Interpretation 1.
CBP imposed interim restrictions on an importer without informing it of an ongoing Enforce and Protect Act investigation, then put partly confidential information on the record without notice so that the importer couldn’t rebut it, that importer said in a Feb. 26 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Superior Commercial Solutions LLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00052).
Three U.S. steel companies, Cleveland-Cliffs, Steel Dynamics and SSAB Enterprises, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that Turkish exporter Habas failed to show that the Commerce Department's finding that Habas' Turkish lira price, and not the U.S. dollar price, controlled the amount owed by the exporter's customers at the time of payment was unsupported. Filing a reply brief on Feb. 26, the steel companies said Habas' arguments, which were "long on verbiage and obfuscation but short on specificity and clarity," only presumed the agency's finding to be wrong and did not actually show that it was (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1158).
A government claim that an importer failed to exercise “reasonable care” is not enough for an actual charge of negligence under the customs penalty statute, that importer said Feb. 23 before the Court of International Trade (U.S. v. Katana Racing d/b/a Wheel & Tire Distributors, CIT # 19-00125).
The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a Feb. 26 confidential order in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Argentina. In a letter to the parties, Judge Claire Kelly said it's her intention to issue a public version of the opinion on or shortly after March 5, giving the parties until March 4 to review the confidential information. In the remand results, Commerce continued to use respondent Nexco's acquisition costs as a proxy for the cost of production of beekeeper supplies (see 2310130049). The agency also struck by its decision to compare Nexco's U.S. sale prices with normal values based on Nexco's third-country sale prices to Germany on a monthly basis instead of a quarterly basis (Nexco v. U.S., CIT # 22-00203).
Indian exporter Kumar Industries withdrew its appeal of an antidumping duty case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 23. The company said that it "has elected not to further pursue its appeal," noting that the U.S. consented to the withdrawal (Kumar Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1293).
The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over an importer’s case under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) because it has previously ruled that an administrative protest against an entry’s liquidation cannot be brought before the liquidation has occurred, that importer said in a brief contesting the U.S. motion to dismiss (Fraserview Remanufacturing Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00063).