The Court of International Trade on Feb. 20 remanded the Commerce Department's finding that R210-S engines made by Chongqing Rato Technology Co. fall within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on vertical shaft engines between 99cc and up to 225cc from China. Exporter Zhejiang Amerisun Technology Co. argued the R210-S engines have a newly designed horizontal shaft engine outside the orders' scope, while the U.S. said the horizontal shaft engine was equivalent to a modified vertical shaft engine, falling within the orders' scope. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce's claim that the orders don't include an exhaustive list of the parts needed for an engine to be covered cuts against "well-established legal precedent regarding scope rulings," and that the agency improperly relied on Wikipedia articles -- an "inherently unreliable source."
A U.S. motion to dismiss an importer's challenge of the way CBP handled liquidation after a prior disclosure amounts to a “mischaracterization” of its complaint, and the Court of International Trade also had jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the Customs Courts Act of 1980, the importer said (Larson-Juhl US v. U.S., CIT # 23-00032).
In Feb. 13 remand comments filed in the Court of International Trade, a domestic petitioner said that CIT erred in its ruling remanding a Moroccan phosphate fertilizer exporter’s CVD determination and that this forced the Commerce Department to incorrectly recalculate the exporter’s costs (The Mosaic Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00116).
CBP on Feb. 15 reversed its finding that importer Columbia Aluminum Products evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT # 19-00185).
The U.S. opened a customs penalty lawsuit against California importer Rago Tires, alleging that the company avoided antidumping and countervailing duty orders on truck and bus tires from China. The government is looking to collect $56,435.48 from Rago, quadruple the amount of duties the company allegedly failed to pay (U.S. v. Rago Tires, CIT # 24-00043).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 15 said companies that submit requests for administrative review in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings can intervene as a matter of right at the Court of International Trade.
Certain types of electrical conduit fittings imported from China are not subject to an antidumping duty order on certain malleable iron pipe fittings from that country, the Commerce Department said in a Feb. 8 scope ruling.
An importer and plaintiff-intervenor in an ongoing case regarding Thai steel truck wheels said Feb. 13 that the Commerce Department was ignoring the plain language of a scope of the relevant antidumping and countervailing duty orders to find its products were in-scope (Asia Wheel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00143).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 13 dismissed an antidumping duty case brought by exporter Oman Fasteners for lack of prosecution. Mario Toscano, clerk of the court, said that no complaint was filed "within the period" laid out by 19 U.S.C. 1516a, which says an interested party may file a summons and complaint within 30 days of a determination from the Commerce Department. Oman Fasteners brought the suit to contest the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Oman in which it received a zero percent dumping margin. No separate lawsuit was filed by the petitioner in the review, Mid Continent Steel & Wire (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 24-00008).
Tire exporter Pirelli Tyre told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Commerce Department improperly applied its own legal framework for assessing whether the company rebutted the presumption of Chinese state control in the third review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. Filing a reply brief on Feb. 9, Pirelli said the agency ignored the policy's explicit directive to link all four of the factors concerning de facto foreign state control to a company's "export activities" (Pirelli Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2266).