The Federal Register notice announcing the beginning of antidumping and countervailing duty administrative reviews serves as notice to foreign exporters that they are included and must participate to avoid high rates, said the Court of International Trade in a decision issued April 21 (here). A Chinese company, Suntec, had challenged the final results of a review where Commerce assigned it the high “China-wide” rate of over 100 percent because Suntec did not submit the required application for a “separate rate.” Suntec claimed it never received the required notice when a domestic company requested the review, and consequently didn’t know it was under review until after the final results were issued. However, the separate rate application was due after the Federal Register initiation notice, so even with the missing notification from the domestic company Suntec should have known it was listed and required to submit the application, said CIT.
Components repackaged into finished goods kits after importation are not eligible for the finished goods kit exemption from antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, said the Court of International Trade in a decision issued April 20 (here). A good to qualifies for the exemption if already packed into kits before importation, even if in separate boxes, but not if the boxes must be opened and the contents rearranged after the merchandise is imported, said CIT as it sustained a 2014 Commerce Department scope ruling on DistriCargo’s exhibition booth kits (see 14081801).
Aluminum screen door kits imported without screens are not “finished goods kits” exempt from antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, said the Court of International Trade on April 20 as it sustained a Commerce Department scope ruling. Commerce had in 2014 ruled Circle Glass’ kits ineligible because they did not include all parts necessary to assemble a finished screen door (see 1412110058). CIT agreed, finding “Commerce reasonably explained that [Circle Glass’] ‘patio door kit,’ using only the parts available upon importation, essentially assembles into an empty frame made of extruded aluminum.”
NEW YORK -- As trade lawyers test the waters of a new “small claims” procedure, another way customs lawyers and the government could streamline cases is by adapting procedures followed by their counterparts in intellectual property law, said lawyers at a seminar held by the Customs and International Trade Bar Association on April 21. Parties in customs cases could save a lot of time and expense in some cases if they get right to the legal issues of what HTS provisions mean, rather than engaging in a lengthy discovery process on the product at hand when it might not affect the outcome of the case, said Lawrence Friedman of Barnes Richardson.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 11-17:
Products may be circumventing antidumping and countervailing duties even if they aren’t named in the original scope of an AD/CVD order and were available in another country at the time the order was issued, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled. Overturning a 2013 ruling by the Court of International Trade (see 13102804), the Federal Circuit’s April 5 opinion (here) held that 4.75mm diameter steel wire rod from Deacero is circumventing duties on steel wire rod from Mexico, despite the fact that the scope of the AD duty order is limited to rods 5mm to 19mm in diameter and 4.75mm wire rod was commercially available in Japan at the time the scope was written in 2002. Circumvention inquiries are meant to capture products that may not be named in the scope, and only specifically excluded products cannot be found to be circumventing, said CAFC. Although the 4.75mm wire rod was available in Japan, the smallest diameter available in the countries investigated in 2002 was 5.5mm, it said. “That some quantity of small-diameter steel wire rod may have been in existence at some time in non-investigated countries does not limit Commerce’s" circumvention analysis, said the appeals court as it reinstated the Commerce Department's original finding of circumvention.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 4-10:
The Court of International Trade is asking for comments by May 2 on proposed changes to its rules, it said (here). The proposals include amendments to rules governing interrogatories and new rules and a new form for filing physical samples as evidence.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 28 - April 3:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 21-27: