The Commerce Department cannot countervail glass purchases since both the Court of International Trade and Commerce have found that glass subsidies are not aluminum extrusions inputs, countervailing duty review respondent Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co. argued in its Oct. 3 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Jangho also argued that CIT illegally allowed Commerce to make a post hoc rationalization as a basis for the finding to countervail glass subsidies (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. 22-2000).
Country of origin cases
Teo Boon Ching, a Malaysian national, was charged with conspiring to traffic more than 70 kilograms of rhinoceros horns worth over $725,000 and launder the proceeds of the sale of the horns, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York announced. Ching was arrested in Thailand in June and extradited to the U.S. on Oct. 7 to appear before Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein, the U.S. Attorney's Office said. He faces a maximum of five years in prison for the trafficking charge and 20 years in prison for the two counts of money laundering.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP did not violate the law by refusing to make a referral to the Commerce Department on a question of country of origin since CBP was "fully able to determine" that the wooden cabinets and vanities at issue in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation were covered by the relevant orders, petitioner Masterbrand Cabinets argued in an Oct. 4 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, CIT #22-00080).
The U.S. plans to file a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of an opinion finding that the Commerce Department cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping duty review where multiple exporters have requested a review. The Federal Circuit granted an order on Oct. 5 giving the government 60 more days to file the rehearing motion. In the case, originally brought by YC Rubber Co., the Federal Circuit said that Commerce's interpretation of the statute finding that it can use only one respondent cuts against the statute's unambiguous language (see 2208290026). The judges ruled the agency has not shown it to be otherwise reasonable to calculate the all-others rate based on only one respondent and said the directive to find a weighted average gives no reason why it's reasonable to use only a single rate (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, Fed. Cir. 21-1489).
Importer Bral failed to clear the three-prong test needed to make a valid claim for an allowance in value for imports of plywood, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade over its cross-motion for judgment. While Bral is correct that it does not make commercial sense to contract for defective goods, the importer needs to prove at a minimum that it entered into a contract with the overseas plywood producer for a good of specific qualities that is to perform in a certain way -- a bar Bral failed to meet, the brief said (Bral Corporation v. U.S., CIT #20-00154).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Oct. 3 order gave the U.S. an additional 4,000 words for its reply brief in a spat over whether the president can revoke a safeguard exemption granted for bifacial solar panels. The government originally sought to double its word count to 14,000, though the appellees in the matter, led by the Solar Energy Industries Association, proposed to limit the bid to 11,000 (see 2209190057). Judge Jimmie Reyna sided with the appellees (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1392).
The Commerce Department failed to adhere to the Court of International Trade's remand instructions concerning its duty to perform verification in an antidumping duty case, plaintiffs led by Bonney Forge argued in an Oct. 3 brief at the Court of International Trade. The trade court ordered Commerce to either conduct verification, even if virtually, or more fully explain why it cannot in the context of current conditions and not those of the investigation period. Bonney Forge argued that Commerce violated these instructions by basing its remand results on the conditions during the investigation (Bonney Forge Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-03837).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate Oct. 3 in a case on whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value. In the Federal Circuit's August opinion, the appeals court cited its previous rejection of the appellants' claims in the Hyundai Steel v. U.S. case. In the present action, the appellants, led by American Cast Iron Pipe, sought to differentiate its case from Hyundai Steel by arguing they are appealing an original investigation while the Hyundai Steel action challenged an administrative review. The Federal Circuit said this does not result in a different outcome (see 2208260040) (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1502).