The Court of International Trade on Dec. 26 ordered the International Trade Commission to take another look at its decision to end the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on bottom-mount combination refrigerator-freezers from South Korea and Mexico. The ITC ended the proceedings in April 2012 with no AD/CV duties imposed after finding domestic industry wasn’t injured by Mexican and South Korea imports (see 12041807). Although it agreed with most of the ITC’s findings, the court said it was concerned that the ITC may have double counted in its calculations when it said that domestic sales were not declining during the period under investigation. The ITC argued that any change would be insignificant and wouldn’t affect its overall negative injury determination, but CIT said it has enough doubts that the ITC needs to go back and make sure.
A federal District Court in Minnesota will allow a breach of contract lawsuit from C.H. Robinson to go forward, denying on Jan. 8 a motion to dismiss the case. The third-party logistics provider says U.S. Sand and its owners failed to pay for the transportation of 8,500 tons of ceramic proppant and sand from China and Wisconsin to the oil fields of North Dakota.
Deckers Outdoor Corp. on Jan. 7 asked the Supreme Court to hear an appeal on the tariff classification of its “Uggs” boots. According to Deckers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision that the boots are “slip on” footwear improperly relied on an internal agency definition of slip-on footwear from CBP’s 1993 “Footwear Definitions” document. If allowed to stand, such reliance on unsupported administrative “fiat” statements would put importers in a difficult position by curtailing their ability to get courts to review tariff classification disputes, says Deckers.
The Court of International Trade sustained zero percent antidumping duty rates set for POSCO and Hyundai HYSCO in the final results of the 2009-10 administrative review of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from South Korea (A-580-816), in a recently released opinion dated Dec. 27. The zero rate for POSCO resulted in its exclusion from the order under the Commerce Department’s old regulation allowing partial revocation for companies that don’t dump in three consecutive administrative reviews. U.S. Steel and Nucor challenged revocation for the company, among other things, arguing market conditions during the review period, including the worldwide economic downturn, indicated that POSCO would resume dumping if duties were lifted. Absent evidence that POSCO would actually resume underselling in the absence of AD duties, such arguments were speculative, and Commerce was not required to address them, said the court.
The Court of International Trade denied challenges from both sides of a dispute over the 2009-10 antidumping duty administrative review on frozen warmwater shrimp from India (A-533-840). Indian companies Apex Exports and Falcon Marine Exports argued that refunds it received on prior AD duty payments should offset certain costs that had resulted in a higher AD duty rate for the companies. On the other hand, domestic petitioners said past AD duty payments should be deducted from U.S. prices for the purposes of the duty calculation. In a recently released opinion dated Dec. 31, the court rejected both arguments and sustained Commerce’s final results.
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 10 approved penalties totaling $324,687 against an importer for misclassifying entries of wallets and handbags and underpaying customs duties. The court had in October found defendant Lafidale to be liable for penalties after the company failed to defend itself, but didn’t allow the government to collect because of discrepancies in how the penalty amount was calculated (see 13103027). CIT found a correction submitted to the court in December to be a sufficient basis for the penalty amount, and entered judgment in favor of the government.
The U.S. government on Jan. 8 told a federal court in New York that it intends to take part in a whistleblower suit against an apparel importer for underpayment of duties. The false claims suit alleges several affiliated apparel companies in New York underreported the dutiable value on invoices provided to CBP for imports of women’s apparel by using a second, unreported invoice for part of the purchase price. That resulted in a loss of revenue to the federal government of at least $3 million per year in unpaid duties, says the complaint.
Lost profits shouldn’t be added to damages for losses during transportation unless a specific contractual provision requires it, ruled a federal district court in Houston on Jan. 2. Maass Flange argued it should be able to recover lost profits that resulted from a boring mill it imported from Canada being damaged while being transported to its facility in Texas. Totran Transportation was moving the boring mill by truck when it hit an overpass near Denton. The Texas Southern U.S. District Court found Totran couldn’t be held liable under the Carmack Amendment for lost profits that resulted from Maass not being able to use the damaged boring mill. Awarding special damages simply based on the argument that Maass had lost profits would expose carriers to liability for such damages for “virtually every shipment to any kind of manufacturing or similar facility,” it said. If Maass wanted to protect its profits, it should have put a specific provision in its contract with Totran to that effect, said the court.
Mark Alexander of Georgia was sentenced to 18 months in prison after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to violate the U.S. trade embargo with Iran, said ICE in a press release. Alexander conspired with two Iranian businessmen to sell Hydrajet water-jet cutting systems, used for the precision cutting of materials such as aluminum, glass, granite and steel, to customers located in Iran, said ICE.
A Chinese exporter of Vitamin C is appealing an award of $153,300,000 in a class action suit related to antitrust violations. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical filed its appeal Dec. 23 in the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, contesting a Nov. 26 judgment at the Eastern New York U.S. District Court that found the company liable for damages related to a price fixing scheme.