Court of International Trade

The Commerce Department should further explain its decision to not verify customer self-certifications establishing non-use of China's Export Buyers Credit Program in a countervailing duty case, finally moving beyond the "endless loop" brought by the issue, Judge Timothy Reif of the Court of International Trade said in a May 26 opinion. In a saga reminiscent of the film Groundhog Day, according to Reif's opinion, the EBCP has been the subject of "intense litigation," prompting Reif to ask for an answer from Commerce for why it refuses to verify the customer self-certifications, leading to the application of adverse facts available for the subject goods relating to the EBCP.

The Department of Justice wants a stay in a case involving the Commerce Department's use of its non-market economy policy, arguing that issues in a related appeals court case have implications for the case in the Court of International Trade. In a May 25 motion, DOJ argued that since the Federal Circuit case, China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC v. United States, Fed. Cir. #2020-1159, deals with whether the statute authorizes Commerce to apply a China-wide rate to an exporter that failed to show freedom from government control in an antidumping investigation, the outcome of the case will "likely impact the outcome of this remand" (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd., v. United States, CIT #18-00191). In the CIT case, the court remanded an antidumping investigation on multilayered wood flooring, finding that the agency's determination that Chinese exporter Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group was de facto controlled by the Chinese government lacked substantial evidence (see 2104300079). The decision took issue with Commerce's application of the China-wide rate to Jilin, given that Commerce's NME policy was meant to incentivize greater compliance and Jilin fully complied with all Commerce requests.

The Court of International Trade on May 27 upheld remand results from the Commerce Department that reversed a scope ruling that included ready-to-assemble kitchen cabinets in antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood products from China. While the agency continued to hold the request for the scope ruling was specific enough, despite concerns in his initial remand from Judge Gary Katzmann, Commerce on further examination found that the scope requests lacked sufficient supporting evidence and explanation.

Tool retailer Stanley Black & Decker filed a lawsuit in the Court of International Trade, hoping to piggyback on a recent decision striking down the Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum "derivatives," according to a May 27 complaint. The decision, PrimeSource Buildnig Products, Inc. v. United States, et al., CIT #20-00032, found that President Donald Trump violated procedural time limits when expanding the Section 232 tariffs onto derivative products (see 2104050049). A three-judge panel at the court made the decision, ultimately finding that only PrimeSource would be granted refunds for payments made toward the 25% steel derivatives tariffs. While the decision stopped imposing the tariffs for imports and unliquidated goods, it found that it would only grant refunds on a per-case basis. The company is seeking a refund with interest for any payments made toward the duties.

The Court of International Trade remanded in part and sustained in part the Commerce Department's final results in a countervailing duty investigation on truck and bus tires from China in a May 19 opinion made public on May 26. Upholding Commerce's issuance of the CVD order and the agency's application of adverse facts available to previously unreported grants and loans by respondent Giuzhou Tyre Co., Judge Timothy Reif also sent back for further consideration Commerce's decision to apply AFA to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, along with four other elements to its duty calculation.

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's remand results reversing a scope ruling that included ready to assemble kitchen cabinets under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood products from China, in a May 27 opinion. Judge Gary Katzmann had originally remanded on the question of whether the scope request from petitioners in the case was specific enough to be accepted, and upon further examination Commerce found that it was not. None of the litigants challenged the remand redetermination.

A set of domestic steel producers will not be allowed to intervene in six challenges to the Commerce Department's denials of Section 232 tariff exclusions to steel importers, following a May 25 decision from the Court of International Trade. "Nevertheless," said Judge Miller Baker as he denied their motions to intervene, "the Court reiterates its willingness to entertain motions to appear as amici curiae."

The Court of International Trade erred in relying on "bypass" liquidations when evaluating the established classification treatment of bicycle seat imports, Kent International argued in a May 21 reply brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. When determining whether an established classification treatment exists, CBP can only consider liquidations in which a Customs officer has made a determination, it said. In this case, CBP incorrectly looked at bypass liquidations, which are processed automatically without review by a CBP officer, it said. The bike seat importer said in its appeal that the imported goods should be classified according to CBP's established treatment in subheading 9401, which would allow them to enter duty-free (Kent International, Inc., v. United States, Federal Circuit #21-1065).

A group of steel importers, after suffering a defeat in the Court of International Trade, brought their broad challenge to the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that the statute includes procedural requirements that were ignored in President Donald Trump's expansion of the tariffs. Filing its opening brief on May 24, the importers say that plain use of the mandatory word "shall" throughout Section 232 means the procedural requirements, such as an underlying report from the Commerce Department precipitating tariff action, are required. The steel importers also again argued that the commerce secretary's report is considered final agency action, ready for judicial review (Universal Steel Products, Inc. et al., v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1726).

The Commerce Department failed to follow the Court of International Trade's remand orders in attempting to justify its same adverse facts available determination in an antidumping case, Vietnamese fish exporters argued in their May 21 comments on the agency's remand results. "In its haste to apply total AFA, Commerce has not actually considered and explained all of the relevant record evidence, including that which fairly detracts from its decision," the exporters said. "This was unlawful"(Hung Vuong Corporation, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00055).