CAFC Says Jurisdictional Issues Bar Auto Parts Importer's Case for Zero AD Rate
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Court of International Trade ruling in a Sept. 2 order, finding it does not have jurisdiction to hear Chinese automobile parts exporter Wanxiang America Corporation's lawsuit. Claiming the trade court's…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
residual Section 1581(i) jurisdiction, Wanxiang filed a due process claim against the Commerce Department's guidance to CBP instructing the customs agency to deny Wanxiang the company-specific antidumping duty rate for its tapered roller bearings entries and apply the country-wide rate. The appellate court found it would have had jurisdiction if there were a denied customs protest under Section 1581(a). CAFC also could have had Section 1581(c) jurisdiction if Wanxiang initiated a test shipment and sought an administrative review and remained unsuccessful in pursuing the company-specific rate, the court said.