Importer FCMT on Oct. 16 dismissed three cases it brought at the Court of International Trade on CBP's appraisal of its apparel entries. The company filed a trio of complaints in May claiming that CBP failed to use the products' transaction value to appraise the merchandise and that CBP engaged in an "arbitrary and fictitious appraisement" of the merchandise (see 2506020020). FCMT said CBP appraised the Chinese merchandise using an "unknown method of appraisement" and merely increased the value of the merchandise by 148% (FCMT v. United States, CIT #s 21-00242, -00243, -00247).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s Oct. 8 decision clarifying the cross-owned input provider regulations also is applicable in a Turkish rebar case before CAFC, a petitioner said in an Oct. 13 letter (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1431).
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 20 sustained the Commerce Department's decision on remand to exclude importer Elysium Tiles' composite tile from the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tile from China. After being told by the court to consider the (k)(2) scope factors, Commerce flipped its scope finding on Elysium's tile to exclude the company's products from the orders. Judge Jane Restani reviewed the agency's (k)(2) analysis and found that while for three of them, the products' ultimate uses, channels of trade and means of advertisement, favored including the composite tile in the orders' scope, these factors are outweighed by the differences in the products' physical characteristics and user expectations.
Importer Veregy Central argued that CBP improperly assessed hefty antidumping and countervailing duties on its solar cell imports from Thailand and Vietnam. In a complaint filed with the Court of International Trade on Oct. 17, Veregy said its goods were properly excluded from these duties due to President Joe Biden's duty pause on solar cells and modules from Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Malaysia, since its imports were within the scope of the AD/CVD orders on Chinese solar cells and were consumed in the U.S. within 24 months of Biden's proclamation announcing the duty pause (Veregy Central v. United States, CIT # 25-00229).
The Court of International Trade's Pay.gov system will undergo maintenance Nov. 8 from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. EDT, the court announced. Documents requiring payment with this system can't be filed on CM/ECF during this time.
The Court of International Trade's network will undergo maintenance from 10 p.m. Oct. 17 to 4 a.m. Oct. 18 ET, the court said. During this time, the court's website, CM/ECF and PACER "may experience intermittent outages."
The U.S. will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision vacating the Commerce Department's decision not to collect antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).
More domestic producers in an Ecuadorian shrimp case objected Oct. 10 to exporters’ motion to supplement the judicial record. They also brought a challenge to the exporters’ further request for more briefing on the issue (Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00025).
The New Zealand government on Oct. 16 opposed conservation group Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ's motion for the Court of International Trade to reconsider its decision not to immediately impose an import ban on seafood and seafood products from set net and trawl fisheries off New Zealand's North Island. Reconsideration motions under CIT Rule 59(e), like the conservation group's, can only be applied to judgments, and the trade court hasn't issued a judgment here, merely a remand, the New Zealand government argued (Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ v. National Marine Fisheries Service, CIT # 24-00218).
Three different solar cell and module exporters recently filed their opening briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a pair of cases on the Commerce Department's findings that the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese solar cells and modules are being circumvented through Thailand and Cambodia (Trina Solar Science & Technology (Thailand) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1940) (BYD (H.K.) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1937).