After the Court of International Trade denied hoverboard importer 3BTect’s motion to strike three expert reports from the record of its classification dispute, the importer switched Feb. 14 to targeting the factual basis of the government’s cross-motion for judgment in a 72-page response brief (3BTech v. United States, CIT # 21-00026).
The Court of International Trade ruled Feb. 21 that exporter Nanjing Kaylang's phragmite cabinets fell under antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wood cabinets from China. CIT Judge Thomas Aquilino said the processing of phragmite was sufficiently similar to wood, and the term “engineered wood products” was ambiguous enough, for a Commerce Department scope ruling that reached the same result to be reasonable (Nanjing Kaylang Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00045).
President Donald Trump's directive in his proclamation expanding Section 232 steel tariffs to assess penalties for the misclassification of entries resulting in non-payment of the duties without regard for "evidence of mitigating factors" may run afoul of existing customs laws, trade lawyers said. Even if the directive stays within the bounds of the current statutory scheme, expect more prior disclosures and proactive steps to ensure the proper customs treatment of steel entries, the lawyers added.
The Court of International Trade in a pair of nearly-identical decisions sustained the Commerce Department's scope ruling that certain trailer wheels made by Asia Wheel Co. fall within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel trailer wheels from China. The wheels are made in Thailand using discs from China and rims made in Thailand. Judge Gary Katzmann held that Commerce didn't unlawfully expand the scope of the orders, since the agency said when it imposed the orders that wheels made of mixed-origin rims and discs could be subject to a scope ruling in the future. The judge also held that Commerce's finding that Asia Wheel's products weren't "substantially transformed" in Thailand was properly supported.
The Court of International Trade's Pay.gov system will be undergoing maintenance on Feb. 22 from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. EST, the court announced. Documents requiring payment on Pay.gov can't be filed on CM/ECF during this time, the court said.
The International Trade Commission erred in failing to consider diesel fuel price increases when assessing whether imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador, India, Indonesia and Vietnam harmed the U.S. industry, Ecuadorian respondents Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila and Sociedad Nacional De Galapagos argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 18, the pair said the injury finding was unsupported by the record, due to the lack of information about fuel price increases (Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila v. United States, CIT # 25-00029).
Two Ecuadorian exporters challenged the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation on frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador, arguing, among other things, that the agency erred in finding that certain tax benefits were de facto specific and in applying adverse facts available for specific subsidy programs. Respondent Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila challenges its final 3.57% CVD rate, while respondent Sociedad Nacional De Galapagos (SONGA) challenges its 4.41% CVD rate (Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila v. United States, CIT # 25-00025).
Chinese exporters led by Giti Tire Global Trading repeated Feb. 17 their claim that the Commerce Department should have taken distance into account when constructing boat freight costs in an antidumping duty review (see 2411050046), saying the government was misinterpreting the financial information provided by a surrogate (Giti Tire Global Trading v. U.S., CIT #24-00083).
The inaugural use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, which saw President Donald Trump set a 10% duty on all goods from China (see 2502030044), has sparked plenty of speculation as to how these tariffs could be challenged in court. One such argument is a statutory claim rooted in the text of IEEPA.
The Commerce Department continued to find on remand at the Court of International Trade that respondent Louis Dreyfus Co. Sucos S.A. and an unnamed supplier, dubbed "Supplier A," are not affiliated, nor are they partners. The agency said it's important to "distinguish 'exclusivity' from 'reliance'" in conducting affiliation analyses, noting that an exclusive relationship with a supplier doesn't mean a party isn't "perfectly capable of acting independently if the exclusive relationship is no longer in its interests" (Ventura Coastal v. United States, CIT # 23-00009).