The Court of International Trade again remanded Commerce’s selection of India as the surrogate country in the 2009-10 antidumping duty administrative review of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip from China (A-570-924). Commerce again declined to consider the most recent economic data on the two countries when making its decision. The court had already remanded on that issue in February (see 13020802). This time, Commerce rejected the data on procedural grounds, because it purportedly didn’t have enough time to review the data. This was despite the fact that the data had been placed on the record before the regulatory deadline for submitting factual information. The court agreed with Dupont Teijin’s argument that Commerce was effectively creating a new deadline that isn’t specified in the regulations, and remanded for a second time.
Importers of goods from China and Vietnam who are subject to antidumping duties must pay at the exporter’s rate, and not the producer’s, ruled the Court of International Trade Aug. 21. That’s the case even if the exporter isn’t a respondent and gets assigned the China- or Vietnam-wide rate, because the country-wide rate serves as a specific AD rate to every non-separate rate exporter, CIT said. Because the regulations prefer specific exporter rates to producer rates, subject merchandise produced by a company with a low separate rate, but exported by a company that doesn’t prove separate rate status, will enter at the exporter’s high China- or Vietnam-wide rate, the court said.
A man from Kent, Wash., pleaded guilty on Aug. 21 to trafficking over $500,000 in counterfeit luxury vehicle parts and accessories, according to a release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Western District of Washington. According to the plea agreement, Guoxiong Xian owns 3 Ways, which sells auto parts like license plate frames, automobile logos and other decorative items over the internet. From November 2008 to April 2013, Xian sold around $538,000 worth of Chinese counterfeit automobile accessories, bearing trademarks that belong to companies such as BMW, Mercedes and Toyota. In January 2013, Xian sold various counterfeit accessories to an undercover agent with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations, the release said.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 15 remanded the final results of the 2009-10 antidumping duty administrative review on activated carbon from China, citing several issues with the average rates assigned to non-individually reviewed “separate rate” companies. Because the rates for the only individually reviewed companies were de minimis, Commerce based the $0.28/kg average rate for seven other companies on rates calculated for different companies in a previous review. That’s too far from the commercial reality of the separate rate companies, the court said. CIT also remanded the Commerce’s decision to use a “specific” per kilogram rate for one of the separate rate companies, as well as the agency’s calculation of surrogate values for inputs.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed on Aug. 19 the Court of International Trade’s dismissal of an antidumping duty lawsuit on steel nails from China. The lower court had declined to rule on Itochu Building Products’ challenge to the revocation date for four types of nails, citing a failure to fully argue its case before Commerce. Itochu had only argued for an earlier revocation date before the preliminary results of the changed circumstances review, and not in the run-up to the final results, so it didn’t exhaust its administrative remedies, CIT had said (see 12092127). But the appeals court reversed on Aug. 19, because submitting comments after Commerce had already rejected Itochu’s arguments at the preliminary stage would have served no purpose, and actually would have harmed the company.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a bid by Ashley Furniture and Ethan Allan for funds under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA, also known as the Byrd Amendment). The two domestic furniture companies argued they were eligible for antidumping and countervailing duties paid under the wooden bedroom furniture from China orders, simply because they responded when the International Trade Commission asked whether they supported the original AD/CVD petitions. Ashley Furniture had answered that it opposed the petition, while Ethan Allan checked the box for “take no position.” According to the two companies, any sort of response qualified as support because it helped the ITC in the investigation. Like the Court of International Trade, the appeals court rejected the argument. Although in a similar case the court had ruled Chez Sidney qualified for CDSOA funds even though it took no position in the final phase questionnaire, that case was different because Chez Sidney checked the box for support of AD/CV duties during the preliminary phase, CAFC said.
Five members of an "international counterfeit goods conspiracy" pleaded guilty to their involvement in importation of counterfeit goods and money laundering, said the U.S. Attorney’s Office of New Jersey. According to court documents, the conspirators imported over 35 containers of counterfeit goods from August 2008 through February 2012. The imports had a total retail value of over $300 million and included cigarettes, handbags and sneakers, said U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman. The conspirators had used a corporation to bring the goods through the Port Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal, using fraudulent customs paperwork that “falsely declared the goods within the containers.”
The Court of International Trade ruled Aug. 16 that Springs Creative Product Group’s (SCPG) “Make-it-Yourself No-Sew Fleece Throw Kits” are properly classified as toys in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, and not as its constituent fabric as CBP had argued. The throw kits are mainly intended for fun, and their eventual use as blankets is secondary, the court said. Significantly, the throw kits sell for a substantial price premium over finished throws.
An Iranian national, Seyed Amin Ghorashi Sarvestani, was sentenced Aug. 14 for conspiring to export goods, including satellite technology and hardware, from the U.S. to Iran, the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York said in a press release. Ghorashi was an owner, managing director and director of two related companies based in the United Arab Emirates, where he “worked with others to export electronic equipment used for satellite communications and data transfer, as well as other goods” from the U.S. to Iran. According to the press release, the exports violated the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Statements during the plea proceeding indicated the exports were completed without required approval from the Office of Foreign Assets Control.
Florida-based import/export company Exim-Brickell filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida Aug. 3, amid a lawsuit over melamine-contaminated powdered milk the company exported from China to Venezuela. The bankruptcy filing shows the company owes about $200 million to various creditors, but only has $300 in office supplies to its name. The milk was shipped during the 2008-09 scare over melamine contamination, after cost-cutting Chinese milk producers adulterated their milk with the kidney-damaging chemical to boost its apparent protein content.