Again remanding the Commerce Department’s final affirmative determination in mattress exporter Zinus Indonesia's antidumping duty case, the Court of International Trade said that facts otherwise available weren't warranted in Commerce's construction of the exporter’s export price and that the department needed to consider new evidence in constructing its selling expenses.
Court of International Trade activity
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 20 rejected a Commerce Department scope ruling finding R210-S engines made by Chonging Rato Technology Co. fall within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on vertical shaft engines between 99cc and up to 225cc and parts thereof from China.
The U.S. will appeal a Court of International Trade case on the 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China, it said in a Feb. 16 notice of appeal. The government lost at the trade court with regard to its land benchmark calculation and use of adverse facts available pertaining to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (see 2312200026).
Antidumping duty petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that exporter Oman Fasteners' opposition to its bid to stay the appeal is a strategic delay tactic (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1350).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 20 sustained the Commerce Department’s application of the Transactions Disregarded Rule to calculate mattress exporter Zinus Indonesia’s normal value in an AD investigation. However, it remanded Commerce’s decision, in constructing Zinus Indonesia’s export price, to apply a quarterly financial ratio to the mattresses of Zinus’ U.S. affiliate that were still in transit at the end of the period of review; doing so was using facts otherwise available, the court said, and Commerce should have first asked Zinus Indonesia for the relevant missing information. CIT also granted Commerce a voluntary remand on its decision to exclude Zinus Korea’s selling expenses from Zinus Indonesia’s constructed value so that the department could consider more evidence that the Korean affiliate helped Zinus Indonesia sell its products (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. U.S., CIT # 21-00277).
A vehicle accessories exporter's products are “steps bars,” as demonstrated by their usual industry use, designs and marketing, not “side protective attachments,” as the exporter claims, the government said Feb. 16 at the Court of International Trade (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).
Georgia woman Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois filed suit at the Court of International Trade Feb. 16 to contest six questions on the October 2021 customs broker license exam. In her complaint, Stoute-Francois said that after appealing the test results to the Treasury Department, she was left just short of the 75% grade needed to pass the test, failing at 73.75% (Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois v. U.S., CIT # 24-00046).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 16 said that importer Trijicon's tritium-powered gun sights are properly classified under CBP's preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading of 9405.50.40 as lamps "or other lighting fittings," dutiable at 6%, instead in subheading 9022.29.80 as "apparatus based on the use of alpha, beta or gamma radiations," free of duty, as argued by Trijicon. Judge Mark Barnett said the tritium-powered products don't qualify as an "apparatus" under either of the definitions offered by Trijicon and the U.S. because they meet the "common definition of a device," given that they are made for a particular purpose: illumination.
Exporter CVB will appeal a January Court of International Trade decision upholding the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury finding on mattresses from a host of countries to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The trade court found various errors in the ITC's assessment of whether the market industry is segmented but nevertheless sustained the injury determination due to the "harmless error" principle (see 2312200070) (CVB v. U.S., CIT # 21-00288).
An importer said that CBP liquidated 227 of its entries at an incorrect 1.02% AD rather than at the proper de minimis rate, then denied its protests and refused refunds despite a correction from Commerce (PNS Clearance v. U.S., CIT #24-00044).