The U.S. "myopically" focused on a "single piece of evidence" regarding the proper date of sale of exporter Toyo Kohan's U.S. sales in the 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on diffusion-annealed nickel-plate flat-rolled steel from Japan, Toyo Kohan argued in an Aug. 8 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The government's brief centered on a statement in the exporter's questionnaire responses and the "price of a single example sales transaction" and says this focus is "reasonable," yet it's unreasonable to "ignore the second example in the same exhibit" that shows a price change, the brief said (Toyo Kohan Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00261).
The Commerce Department on Aug. 8 calculated an individual countervailing duty rate for exporter Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. on remand in a case on the administrative review of the CVD order on multilayered wood flooring from China for the 2017 review period. Commerce gave Jiangsu Senmao a 2.4% CVD rate in response to an instruction from the Court of International Trade to individually review the respondent (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-03885).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 12 sustained the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation into boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from Thailand. Judge Mark Barnett upheld Commerce's selection of Thai steel shelving maker PNS Manufacturing's financial statements to determine constructed value and the agency's decision to use the date of invoice as the date of sale for respondent Siam Metal's U.S. sales. The judge also sustained Commerce's reliance on respondents Bangkok Sheet and Siam Metal's actual costs as recorded in their financial accounting systems as the companies' total cost of manufacturing.
The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 11 that stripping the president of his authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act would lead to "ruinous" economic consequences in light of the trade deals reached with the EU, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and the U.K. (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1813).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 12 upheld the Commerce Department's determination that importer Valeo North America's T-series aluminum sheet from China fits under the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China. Judges Richard Taranto, Todd Hughes and Kara Stoll disagreed with Valeo that the orders "unambiguously" exclude Valeo's aluminum sheet, finding the phrase "as designated by the Aluminum Association" to be ambiguous. The judges also disagreed with Valeo's claim that its T-series aluminum sheet falls outside the scope of the orders, since it's heat-treated. The court also held that Commerce wasn't required to revoke the suspension instructions it had issued to CBP when it started the scope inquiry after the Court of International Trade remanded the proceeding for the agency to undertake a (k)(2) analysis.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. agreed to liquidate importer SW Technologies' nitrile rubber globes under the importer's preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading -- a move which will see CBP refund SW Technologies ordinary customs duties and Section 301 tariffs. The goods were initially imported under HTS subheading 4015.19.1010, which covers non-medical gloves at a 3% duty rate. SW Technologies argued at the Court of International Trade that the gloves should have been classified under the duty-free subheading 4015.19.0550 as medical gloves. Per a stipulated judgment at CIT, the U.S. will liquidate the importer's entries under its preferred subheading and secondary subheading 9903.88.39, which exempts the goods from Section 301 duties (SW Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 23-00119).
Importer InterGlobal Forest alleged at least eight errors in the Court of International Trade's July ruling upholding a Commerce Department finding that three plywood importers evaded antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on plywood from China (see 2507100044), and it asked for an adverse inference against the government for “suppressing evidence in flagrant violation” of an earlier remand order (American Pacific Plywood v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03914).
Domestic petitioner Mosaic Company pushed back against the Commerce Department’s redetermination on remand -- made under protest -- that a Moroccan government program wasn’t specific to fertilizer exporter OCP (see 2507010039), saying the department’s original, contrary finding was reasonable and supported by record evidence (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00246).
The government will appeal an August Court of International Trade decision finding that its claim for unpaid duties against a surety company on an entry liquidated in 2009 violates both the statute of limitations for seeking payment and an implied requirement in the bond that demand for payment be made in a reasonable time (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).