The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Country of origin cases
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit changed the label on a key antidumping duty decision from "nonprecedential" to "precedential." The decision stated that the Commerce Department cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping duty review where multiple exporters have requested a review (see 2208290026). The appellate court said that Commerce's interpretation of the statute finding that it can use only one respondent runs "contrary to the statute's unambiguous language." 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 that it's reasonable to use only a single rate. The decision was originally listed as "nonprecedential," but the court later reversed that (YC Rubber Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1489).
Argentina has requested dispute consultations with Peru at the World Trade Organization over Peru's antidumping and countervailing duties on biodiesel from Argentina, the WTO announced. Argentina is contesting six measures imposed by Peru: 1) the original CVD investigation, 2) the original AD investigation, 3) the CVD changed circumstances review, 4) the AD changed circumstances review, 5) the CVD sunset review, and 6) the AD sunset review.
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 8 order upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a scope case on the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China originally brought by Vandewater International. Following an initial decision from Judge Leo Gordon, Commerce continued to find that Vandewater's steel branch outlets used in fire protection systems fall under the scope of the AD order using an analysis of the (k)(2) criteria. In the newest opinion, Gordon said despite the plaintiffs' arguments that show the record could back a finding that the outlets are excluded from the order, the court cannot find that Commerce acted unreasonably in its conclusion using the (k)(2) factors.
Instec Inc., a scientific instrument technology company based in Colorado, and Dr. Zhong Zou, its owner and president, agreed to pay $625,000 to settle allegations that the company and Zou violated the False Claims Act, DOJ announced. Instec and Zou failed to comply with the requirements of the Buy American Act when selling scientific instruments claimed to have been made in the U.S. to U.S. federal agencies and national laboratories, DOJ said.
A Canadian softwood lumber producer cannot claim to be a successor-in-interest to another lumber company still in existence, the government argued in a Sept. 6 brief at the Court of International Trade (GreenFirst Forest Products, v. United States, CIT # 22-00097)
The Court of International Trade should not grant importer Greenlight Organic's and Parambir Singh Aulakh's motion for a certification of an order for an interlocutory appeal in a customs fraud case since the court's decision did not emit a "controlling question of law" to be appealed, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 1 reply brief. The court's opinion denied a motion for judgment since facts were still in dispute, precluding the interlocutory appeal, the U.S. said (United States v. Parambir Singh "Sonny" Aulakh, CIT #17-00031).
Antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube Co. will appeal an August Court of International Trade ruling that found that the Commerce Department properly excluded dual-stenciled pipe from the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, according to the Sept. 2 notice of appeal. The petitioner will take its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. At CIT, Judge Stephen Vaden ruled that no line pipe was made in Thailand when the original AD investigation was conducted almost 40 years ago and that the International Trade Commission made no harm finding for line or dual-stenciled pipe from Thailand (see 2208260024) (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00133).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The U.S. cannot ignore commercial reality when arguing against the fact that importer Bral Corporation contracted for defect-free merchandise, Bral argued in a Sept. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Bral is seeking to establish a valid claim for an allowance -- a move the U.S. contests by arguing that the importer failed to produce any documents to detail the quantity, sizes or specifications of its imported plywood. Bral said that while this may be true, it's clear from other evidence that Bral developed the specifications for the imports over a significant period that led to the import of its plywood products (Bral Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-00154).