The Commerce Department confirmed its decision to impose a 160% countervailing duty rate for exporter Tau-Ken Temir in the countervailing duty investigation on silicon metal from Kazakhstan despite a remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, CIT # 21-00173).
The Court of International Trade erred when it failed to find that importer BASF's food additive betatene is classified as a natural or synthetically reproduced provitamin under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 2936, BASF argued in its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The importer said that it clearly established that its product was "prima facie classifiable under heading 2936, meaning that as a matter of law, classification under heading 2106," as a dietary supplement, "cannot stand" (BASF Corporation v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 26-1056).
In a Jan. 8 notice of supplemental authority, the government said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in Mosaic Co. v. United States (see 2512050026) was applicable to a current case challenging the Commerce Department's finding that a Korean electricity program was de facto specific to one of its three largest users (Hyundai Steel v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00190).
The U.S. either "concedes, does not dispute, or misses the point of, [importer Cozy Comfort's] key arguments" in the importer's appeal of the Court of International Trade's decision classifying The Comfy, an oversized pullover, as a pullover and not a blanket, Cozy argued in a Jan. 9 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Cozy Comfort v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1889).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 9 issued mandates in two cases: one from importer Nutricia North America on the classification of its medical food imports (see 2511170047) and the other in a countervailing duty case from exporter Kaptan Demir on the decision not to attribute subsidies provided to Kaptan's input supplier to Kaptan itself (see 2511170018) (Nutricia North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1436) (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1431).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 8 sustained the Commerce Department's overhead ratio calculations following a remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the agency's treatment of energy and manufacturing overhead costs in the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China.
CAFC Hears Oral Argument on Interpretation of Statute Governing Automatic Drawback Claim Liquidation
In oral argument held Jan. 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit indicated that it preferred the government’s stricter interpretation of the statute governing automatic liquidation of drawback claims over an importer’s more expansive one (Performance Additives v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2059).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 8 held that domestic sales, "in certain circumstances, may qualify as the basis for using transaction value as an appraisement method." CAFC Judges Sharon Prost and Tiffany Cunningham, along with U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware Judge Richard Andrews, held that the Court of International Trade got it right when it said the transaction value statute, 19 U.S.C. 1401a(b)(1), doesn't require an "international sale or a sale abroad to have occurred for a sale of merchandise to be considered as a sale 'for exportation to the United States.'"
Perkins Coie offered its initial defense in a malpractice suit against the firm relating to its representation of exporter Oman Fasteners in various antidumping duty and countervailing duty proceedings.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 8 affirmed the Court of International Trade's ruling that sales from importer Midwest-CBK's Canadian warehouse to U.S. customers are "sales for export to the U.S." rather than "domestic sales" and thus were properly appraised using transaction value rather than deductive value. CAFC Judges Sharon Prost and Tiffany Cunningham, along with District Court for the District of Delaware Judge Richard Andrews, sitting by designation, held that the transaction value statute doesn't "expressly require that a sale be international or occur abroad." The court added that the case law and the statutory scheme don't support Midwest's claim, since they establish that "domestic sales may in fact serve as the basis of a transaction value appraisement."