The Court of International Trade should allow four domestic steel producers to intervene on the side of the International Trade Commission in a case contesting the ITC's injury finding in an antidumping duty investigation on hot-rolled steel imports from Turkey, those producers argued in a Feb. 27 brief at the Court of International Trade (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. United States, CIT # 22-00349)
Country of origin cases
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The World Trade Organization's multiparty interim appeal arbitration arrangement (MPIA), an alternative to the defunct Appellate Body, proved to be "operational" after it ensured the right of parties in an antidumping duties dispute to appeal dispute panel reports and to receive a "final, binding ruling, without loopholes to block the process," Geneva Graduate Institute law professor Joost Pauwelyn said in a Feb. 27 blog post. Pauwelyn said MPIA led to the resolution of a recent dispute on frozen fries "without blockage," which preserved “the system's 'binding character and two levels of adjudication.'"
The Court of International Trade should deny a motion for a preliminary injunction by two plaintiff-intervenors because granting that injunction would expand the case beyond its original issues in violation of Supreme Court rulings, DOJ argued in its Feb. 28 response at the Court of International Trade. By requesting an injunction that covers entries not initially subject to the proceeding filed by Jilin Bright, plaintiff-intervenors seek to expand the issues covered by the proceeding, DOJ argued (Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00336).
The Court of International Trade’s recent tariff classification decision on Cyber Power’s uninterruptible power supplies “may be a meaningful reset of the law of substantial transformation,” moving the analysis back to a comparison between parts and finished components after a period of focus on essence or critical components, customs lawyer Larry Friedman said in a Feb. 27 blog post.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Commerce Department unlawfully failed to adjust non-selected companies' cash deposit and assessment rates to account for export subsidy offsets in an antidumping duty review, an association of Indian producers and exports of quartz surface products said in a Feb. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Federation of Indian Quartz Surface Industry v. U.S., CIT # 23-00026).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 27 ruled in favor of an importer on the Philippine origin of one of its models of power supplies and surge protectors, but found the importer didn’t prove a substantial transformation occurred for five others and upheld CBP’s finding of Chinese origin for those models.
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's interpretation of the Major Inputs Rule to allow for the use of third-country surrogate data as "information available" for determining the cost of production of a major input a respondent bought from an affiliated non-market economy-based supplier.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Feb. 24 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):