The U.S. announced April 26 that it's dropping fraud charges it brought in 2002 against Frontier Insurance Co., the surety for Lee-Hunt International, because Frontier no longer exists (U.S. v. Lee-Hunt International, Inc., CIT # 02-00816).
toSearch Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "China import").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead.
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., +CBP).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., -ruling).
Singular form: Always use the singular form when doing multi-word terms (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls").
Shortest word form: When you have different word forms in a quoted (multi-word) term, you want to only include the shortest version if it is the last part of the expression (e.g., "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
Exporter Hyundai Steel Co. on April 26 said that the U.S. attempted to "shield itself under the blanket of" the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's 1999 decision in AK Steel v. U.S. in its bid to countervail the Port of Incheon program in South Korea. However, AK Steel is "inapposite" for the present case since it came at a time before the existing Uruguay Round Agreements Act CVD statute and, as such, didn't contemplate the provision on what constitutes a countervailable benefit (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1100).
The U.S. opposed solar panel exporters’ motion for judgment in a case on an antidumping duty review on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China, saying that the Commerce Department had been right to only adjust a mandatory respondent’s antidumping duty by countervailing subsidy duties on the export-contingent programs used by the respondent (Trina Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00213).
A Chinese brick exporter fought back April 29 against opposition to its motion for judgment by the U.S. (see 2402130053) and domestic producers (see 2403120068), saying that its products weren't circumventing antidumping and countervailing duties on magnesia carbon bricks from China because the products are actually magnesia alumina graphite bricks, which are duty-free. The Commerce Department is “cherry-picking” evidence from prior scope rulings to prove otherwise, it said (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00117).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 29 issued its mandate in a case on the tariff classification of importer RKW Klerks' net wrap products, used in a machine to bale harvested crops. In March, the court said the products are not "parts" of harvesting machinery but in fact are "warp knit fabric," dutiable at 10% under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6005.39.00 (see 2403070047). The court clarified that when an item is "consumable," such as "bullets in a gun, staples in a stapler, or film in a camera," it's not meant solely for use within the machine just because it's used exclusively by the machine. Here, the net wrap is similarly "never a part of the baling machine" since the output product is the net wrap packaged around a hay bale (RKW Klerks v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1210).
Importer Fanuc Robotics America and the U.S. said in an April 26 joint status report that they have reached a settlement agreement on one out of the two remaining robot models at issue in their 2012 classification case. Classification of the last model has been taking longer due to its age and the retirement of a national import specialist, they said, repeating what they shared in a previous update in November (see 2311030029) (Fanuc Robotics America v. U.S., CIT # 12-00052).
The Supreme Court on April 29 turned down the chance to review a lawsuit on whether defunct Lebanese bank Jammal Trust Bank is immune from being sued for supporting Hezbollah as an "instrumentality of a foreign state" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The question posed by the writ of certiorari was whether a defendant's status as an "instrumentality of a foreign state" kicks in at the time of the filing of the complaint against the company, as the high court held in Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, or at any time after the suit is filed, as found by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Jammal Trust Bank claimed it became an instrumentality of Lebanon after it was sued when it "entered state-supervised liquidation" (Bartlett v. Baasiri, Sup. Ct. # 23-568).
Importer Diamond Tools Technology will appeal the Court of International Trade's rejection of the company's request for attorney's fees in its challenge to CBP's determination that Diamond Tools Technology evaded the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from China. In March, Judge Timothy Reif said that since the case offered two issues of "first impression," the government's position was "substantially justified" for purposes of not awarding attorney's fees to the importer (Diamond Tools Technology v. United States, CIT # 20-00060).
Petitioners supporting a Commerce Department scope ruling argued that products’ end uses are not usually immediately considered for classification decisions and that industry support is only considered by the department during an initial antidumping or countervailing duty investigation, not during scope rulings or reviews (Hardware Resources, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00150).
The U.S. and a domestic petitioner April 25 opposed an importer’s motion for judgment in a scope case, arguing that, because the product at issue was coated with a substance that promotes the adherence of ink and other artist materials, the importer’s canvas banner matisse was subject to an antidumping duty order on certain artist canvas from China (Printing Textiles, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00192).