The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Court of International Trade
The United States Court of International Trade is a federal court which has national jurisdiction over civil actions regarding the customs and international trade laws of the United States. The Court was established under Article III of the Constitution by the Customs Courts Act of 1980. The Court consists of nine judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is located in New York City. The Court has jurisdiction throughout the United States and has exclusive jurisdictional authority to decide civil action pertaining to international trade against the United States or entities representing the United States.
Thai pipe exporter Blue Pipe Steel Center Co. filed an unopposed motion to stay proceedings on June 1 in its Enforce and Protect Act challenge until a decision is received from a related case involving a scope ruling on the underlying antidumping duty order in the Court of International Trade. Blue Pipe is hoping to reverse the affirmative determination that its dual stenciled pipe evaded antidumping duties on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Since a related lawsuit from Saha Thai is challenging a scope ruling that found that dual-stenciled pipe was covered by the AD duty order, Blue Pipe's case should wait until the scope matter is settled, the company said.
The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results that, unprompted by court order, raised the antidumping rate for Indian steel exporter Venus Wire Industries, in a June 2 opinion. Though Judge Mark Barnett had in November only ordered Commerce to further explain its use of partial AFA in the underlying review, Commerce also changed its calculations to raise the AD rate on Venus for its stainless steel bar exports from India from 5.35% to 24.6%.
The Court of International Trade in a June 2 opinion remanded an antidumping administrative review on multilayered wood flooring from China to the Commerce Department after a related ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the mandatory respondents to not be subject to the AD order. In the remand, Commerce is to determine a new rate for the separate rate respondents now that the existing 0.79% dumping margin for the mandatory respondents' rate no longer applies.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 2 upheld a Court of International Trade ruling that S.C. Johnson's Ziploc brand reclosable sandwich bags are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3923 as articles for the conveyance or packing of other goods, dutiable at 3%, as opposed to heading 3924 as plastic household goods, which would be eligible for duty-free Generalized System of Preferences benefits program treatment. Since the bags could fall under either heading 3923 or 3924, heading 3923 is the correct home for the bags since its terms are "more difficult to satisfy and describe the article with a greater degree of accuracy and certainty," the Federal Circuit said.
Steel exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. agreed to the Commerce Department's remand results dropping the cost-based particular market situation adjustment in the sales-below-cost test for imports of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, according to May 28 comments filed in the Court of International Trade. The Department of Justice also signed off on the remand results, finding that although Commerce filed the results under respectful protest, continuing to find a PMS in Thailand, the agency complied with court orders by scrapping the PMS adjustment (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #19-00208).
The Court of International Trade in a June 2 opinion remanded an antidumping administrative review on multilayered wood flooring from China back to the Commerce Department after a related ruling in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the mandatory respondents to not be subject to the AD order. In the remand, Commerce is to determine a new rate for the separate rate respondents in the review now that the existing 0.79% dumping margin for the mandatory respondents no longer applies.
The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results which used partial adverse facts available to raise the antidumping rate for Indian stainless steel bar exporter Venus Wire Industries Pvt., in a June 2 opinion. After receiving remand instructions from Judge Mark Barnett on Nov. 11 to further explain its use of partial AFA, Commerce did just that, but also raised the AD rate for Venus from 5.35% to 24.60%. Venus contested the results, arguing that Commerce exceeded the scope of its own voluntary remand request and only ever meant to establish a "higher, punitive margin." Barnett rejected these claims, upholding Commerce's determination.
Federal Circuit Upholds Ruling that Ziploc Sandwich Bags Not Classifiable as Plastic Household Goods
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 2 upheld a Court of International Trade ruling that S.C. Johnson's Ziploc brand reclosable sandwich bags are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3923 as articles for the conveyance or packing of other goods, dutiable at 3%, and not in heading 3924 as plastic household goods, which are eligible for duty-free GSP treatment. Since the bags could fall under either heading 3923 or 3924, heading 3923 is the correct home for the bags since its terms are "more difficult to satisfy and describe the article with a greater degree of accuracy and certainty," the Federal Circuit said in upholding CIT's decision.
COVID-19 manufacturing complications distorted both the timing and the volume of imports over the post-petition period in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations into small vertical shaft engines from China, and the International Trade Commission should not have made findings of critical circumstances that led to imposition of retroactive AD/CV duties in the eventual AD/CVD orders, U.S. importer MTD Products Inc. alleged in a May 28 complaint filed in the Court of International Trade. Foreign manufacturers could not produce the subject merchandise for a "significant portion of the pre-petition period due to COVID-19-related plant closures," MTD said. "Further, COVID-19-related closures in the United States, in addition to commercial uncertainties regarding Petitioner’s long-term viability and inability to meet a spike in domestic demand artificially inflated import volumes over this period," the complaint said. "These extraordinary circumstances significantly distorted both the timing and volume of imports over the post-petition period, the first two factors the Commission must consider when making a finding of critical circumstances." (MTD Products Inc v. United States, CIT #21-00264).