The Court of International Trade on Oct. 24 said exporter The Ancientree Co. failed to timely raise its ministerial error allegation in an antidumping review on Chinese cabinets, finding that the company didn't file the allegation until after the final results even though the error was present in the preliminary findings. The company said its U.S. price should have been adjusted to account for an alleged subsidy it received from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program that was countervailed in the companion CVD proceeding. Judge Mark Barnett held that none of the exceptions to exhaustion applied.
Court of International Trade activity
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Oct. 23 sustained the Commerce Department's rejection of eight Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests from importer Seneca Foods Corp. Judge Gary Katzmann said the rejections were backed by substantial evidence after Commerce addressed various emails submitted by Seneca to show U.S. Steel's alleged inability to make tin mill products in sufficient quantity to satisfy the importer's needs. Katzmann added that Commerce's focus on "prospective evidence of steel production" is in line with the tariff's purpose and effect.
In remand results, the Commerce Department assigned four Mexican tomato exporters an adverse facts available dumping margin of 273.43% for a 1996 investigation that has been suspended for 22 years. The department, which resumed its inquiry in 2019, said that those exporters -- one of whom it couldn't even track down -- had failed to participate in verification to the best of their ability (Bioparques de Occidente v. U.S., CIT # 19-00204).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 23 ruled that steel tubing with insulating material imported by Shamrock Building Materials is classifiable as steel tubes of heading 7306, rather than insulated conduit of heading 8547, subjecting the steel tubing to 25% Section 232 tariffs.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
NEW YORK -- Three judges at the Court of International Trade offered tips to practitioners arguing before the court during an event at the court's judicial conference earlier this month. Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves, Claire Kelly and Gary Katzmann discussed tips for brief writing, oral argument and filing extension requests, laying out personal preferences and common areas where counsel goes wrong.
In two complaints before the Court of International Trade, Chinese pea protein exporters argued that the Commerce Department had unlawfully refused to assign separate rates to either mandatory respondent in a 2023 review, resulting in a separate rate dumping margin of 122.19% and a countervailing duty rate of 15.78% (Zhaoyuan Junbang Trading Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00179, -00180).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 22 denied exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari's (Erdemir's) motion to consolidate three of its appeals, which all involve the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey. Judge William Bryson said the court already has designated the cases as "companion cases," adding that "Erdemir has not shown compelling reasons to require all parties to file consolidated briefs" (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #s 24-2242, -2243, -2249).
The U.S. and importer Katana Racing jointly moved to refer a customs penalty suit to court-annexed mediation before the Court of International Trade following the court's recent decision rejecting Katana Racing's renewed motion to dismiss. The parties said in light of the decision, they "believe that resolution to this litigation could potentially be reached through court-annexed mediation" (U.S. v. Katana Racing, CIT # 19-00125).
The Commerce Department failed to explain its use of an inter-quarter comparison in a differential pricing analysis but not in a margin calculation, despite being told to do so by the Court of International Trade in a remand order, exporters argued Oct. 18 (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00113).