Court of International Trade

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in a July 19 ruling the Court of International Trade's denial of a challenge to a 2020 amendment to an antidumping duty suspension agreement on sugar from Mexico. The trade court had in June 2020 denied CSC Sugar's bid to vacate the suspension agreement amendment. The Federal Circuit upheld the decision without opinion.

The Commerce Department was justified in continuing to apply total adverse facts available in an antidumping case after a Court of International Trade remand since the respondent failed to accurately report control number-specific U.S. sales and factors of production data when it could have "easily" done so, case petitioner Catfish Farmers of America said in a July 9 reply brief. Doubling down on Commerce's arguments, the catfish farmers said the court should sustain the remand results in the case over the final results of the 14th administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam (Hung Vuong Corporation, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00055).

The Court of International Trade on July 19 dismissed Jaramillo Spices Corporation's challenge of a CBP redelivery notice, finding it lacked jurisdiction seeing as the lawsuit was untimely filed and concerned a decision made by the Food and Drug Administration. Jaramillo brought in a single entry of tamarind from Mexico which the FDA ruled was adulterated. The agency then ordered Jaramillo to export or destroy the shipment within 90 days which the importer failed to do. CBP then issued a notice of liquidated damages and demanded $50,000 as payment. The Southern Texas U.S. District Court had already ruled it doesn't have jurisdiction of a similar lawsuit Jaramillo filed there.

The Court of International Trade rejected the Commerce Department's rationale for applying a particular market situation adjustment to a sales-below-cost test in an antidumping case, in a July 19 opinion. Having repeatedly ruled that no such adjustment can be made, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves remanded the results in the 2015-16 administrative review of the antidumping order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea for the third time. Judge Choe-Groves held that the statute instructs Commerce to only make PMS adjustments when calculating constructed value in an AD case and to only use sales in the “ordinary course of trade” when establishing normal value. Since PMS sales are not within the ordinary course of trade, they should be dropped from a normal value calculation rather than used to adjust the cost of production, she said.

Opposing sides in the Section 301 litigation appeared from the July 15 status conference at the U.S. Court of International Trade to be inching toward a compromise that would spare CBP the administrative burden of complying with the court's July 6 preliminary injunction (PI) order freezing liquidation of many thousands of unliquidated customs entries with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure. The court called the conference to gauge progress in creating the order's "repository" for importers to seek the suspension of entries due to be liquidated during a 28-day temporary restraining order period that expires Aug. 2.

Steel producer Nucor Tubular Products Inc. will appeal a June 24 Court of International Trade opinion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to a July 15 notice of appeal. The decision sustained the Commerce Department's decision to drop a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production for South Korean steel in an antidumping review (see 2106240028). In particular, the case, originally brought by Dong-A Steel Co., concerns the 2016-17 antidumping administrative review of heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from South Korea. The case marked yet another instance of the PMS determination having been made on insufficient evidence since Commerce used "substantially the same record evidence" (Dong-A Steel Company v. United States, CIT #19-00104).

Importer Amoena USA Corp. wants the Court of International Trade to find that its mastectomy brassieres of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6212.10.90, dutiable at 16.9%, should properly be classified as the duty-free subheading of 9021.39.0000, according to a July 14 complaint. The former subheading covers "other brassieres of manmade fiber," while the importer's preferred subheading covers "Orthopedic appliances artificial parts of the body; parts and accessories thereof: Other artificial parts of the body and parts and accessories thereof: Other." Mastectomy brassieres are an accessory for artificial breasts for women who have had mastectomies. The brassieres are used to hold the artificial breast in position and are predominantly sold in medical settings, the complaint said. Since they are "principally used as accessories of artificial breast forms" they should be classified in Chapter 90 of the HTS, Amoena said (Amoena USA Corp. v. United States, CIT #20-00100).

The Commerce Department wants a partial remand of its final determination in a countervailing duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Indonesia, to reconsider whether it erroneously identified an upstream subsidy in the case as an export subsidy. In a July 9 motion for partial remand in the Court of International Trade, the government defense said that it wants the chance to review this determination to see if an error was committed and to potentially recalculate the resulting countervailing duty rate for the plaintiff in the case, PT. Kenertec Power System, which received the all-other respondents rate in the investigation (PT. Kenertec Power System v. United States, CIT #20-03687).

The Court of International Trade stayed proceedings in a case brought by Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, challenging the denial of its request for an exclusion from Section 232 duties, in a July 12 order. In the joint motion requesting the stay, counsel for Allegheny said that the government defense reported to the plaintiffs that it was "engaged in internal discussions concerning disposition of this case." The government plans to wrap up the discussions and discuss the results with the plaintiffs in the following week, and said that any resulting status report or motion would be filed "as soon as practicable." Proceedings in the case are stayed until July 21 (Allegheny Technologies Incorporated et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-03923).

The Commerce Department will only partially apply adverse facts available for sales a diamond sawblade exporter made to its U.S. affiliate, which used a first-in-first-out methodology to keep track of its country of origin data when calculating the exporter's antidumping rate, it said in remand results filed by the agency July 13. The filing comes to the Court of International Trade after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit left it up to the trade court to determine if a further remand was needed. The Federal Circuit held that a remand was appropriate for Commerce to determine if it could disregard the exporter's U.S. sales using the FIFO methodology (Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition v. United States, CIT #17-00167).