The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated July 23 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):
Country of origin cases
A European Union request for dispute consultations with Russia in the World Trade Organization over an alleged Russian import substitution program was circulated to members July 26. The substitution program includes three measures to favor Russian state-owned enterprises and businesses over imported goods: price preferencing favoring Russian-origin products in government procurement practices, requirements to obtain prior authorization for the purchase of certain engineering products, and minimum quotas for Russian-origin products in the procurement policies of SOEs. “The EU claims the measures relating to the activities of certain state-related entities, and laws and regulations regulating these activities, are inconsistent with various provisions under the WTO's General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994, the General Agreement on Trade in Services, and Russia's Protocol of Accession to the WTO,” a notice on the dispute consultations said.
The Commerce Department was wrong to "jettison" its prior regulations in not adjusting for the indirect reimbursement for antidumping duties paid in an administrative review on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia, the U.S. Steel Corporation said in a July 13 reply brief. Responding to arguments made by Commerce and defendant-intervenor BlueScope Steel, U.S. Steel argued that the scope of Commerce's reimbursement regulation includes both direct and indirect reimbursement, which runs counter to Commerce's decision to not adjust for indirect reimbursement.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated July 22 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):
The Commerce Department wants another shot to consider the Section 232 tariff exclusion requests filed by Allegheny Technologies Incorporated after the agency initially rejected them. In a July 21 motion for voluntary remand in the Court of International Trade, Commerce said that in light of a recent CIT decision, JSW Steel, Inc. v. United States, which found that Commerce's exclusion request denials were "devoid of explanation and frustrate judicial review," the agency needs to take another look at its denials (Allegheny Technologies Incoporated et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03923).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP “NY” rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP “NY” rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Court of International Trade on July 20 granted a request for voluntary remand from the Commerce Department to reconsider two denied requests from Maple Leaf Marketing for exclusions from Section 232 tariffs. In its motion requesting the remand, Commerce said that the redo was appropriate given the similarities between Maple Leaf's situation and a 2020 case in front of CIT, JSW Steel Inc. v. U.S. In that case, the court found that Commerce's exclusion denials were "devoid of explanation and frustrate judicial review." In its request in the Maple Leaf case, Commerce said that it "could grant one or both of the exclusion requests that Maple Leaf challenges in this case." Commerce originally rejected the exclusions since it found that the "domestic industry was capable of manufacturing sufficient quantities of merchandise of sufficient quality" (Maple Leaf Marketing, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #20-00125).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 20 ruling found that the Commerce Department's initial post-sale price adjustment based on a late delivery penalty in an antidumping case was properly supported. The appellate court reversed a Court of International Trade decision which found that Commerce should have adjusted the price by the entirety of the exporter's penalty payment and not just one-third of it, as Commerce originally did.