The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) doesn't require a level of trade adjustment to account for "any difference in selling activities," the Court of International Trade held on Sept. 25. Upholding the Commerce Department's level of trade regulations, Judge Mark Barnett then sustained its application to antidumping duty respondent Compania Valenciana de Aluminio Baux and its affiliate Bancolor Baux in which the agency said the companies sold common alloy aluminum sheet in its home market of Spain at only one level of trade.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Sept. 24 ordered supplemental briefing in a case concerning the legality of tariffs imposed on Native Americans on the question of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction to review an order transferring cases to another district court (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 25 sustained CBP's finding that importer Blue Pipe Steel Center evaded the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Judge Timothy Reif upheld CBP's decision to set the "effective date of the evasion determination" at the start date for the period of investigation rather than the date the Commerce Department found Blue Pipe's product to fall within the scope of the AD order.
The Commerce Department adequately supported its decision to find that antidumping respondent Compania Valencia de Aluminio Baux and its affiliate, Bancolor Baux, only sold common alloy aluminum sheet in one level of trade in its home market of Spain, the Court of International Trade held on Sept. 25. Judge Mark Barnett said the relevant AD statute doesn't require Commerce to "recognize a distinct level of trade in connection with any differences in selling activities," finding the agency's level of trade regulations to comply with the AD laws.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 25 upheld the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China, finding them to be a valid exercise of authority under Section 307(a)(1)(C). CAFC Judges Todd Hughes and Alan Lourie, along with Eastern District of Texas Judge Rodney Gilstrap, sitting by designation, held that the statute's permission to "modify" Section 301 action where it's "no longer appropriate," allows the U.S. trade representative to ramp up the tariffs if the original action is "insufficient" to achieve its "stated purpose."
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Sept. 23 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 22 signed off on the settlement of a customs penalty suit the U.S. brought against importer Katana Racing. Under the settlement, Katana agreed to pay $2.35 million to resolve the case, which involved $5.8 million in unpaid duties and penalties related to the company's tire imports (see 2509050067) (U.S. v. Katana Racing, CIT # 19-00125).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 23 directed the Court of International Trade to transfer a certain physical exhibit to the appeals court in importer Cozy Comfort's customs case on the classification of its oversized pullover, The Comfy. Cozy moved the Federal Circuit without opposition to transfer a physical sample of The Comfy and its retail packaging to the court so the sample is "available for inspection by this Court and the parties at oral argument" (Cozy Comfort v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1889).
The International Trade Commission "dodges" the substantive arguments made against its affirmative injury finding on Israeli brass rod and, instead, repeatedly asks the Court of International Trade to defer to its "flawed methodologies," the Israeli government's Ministry of Economy and Industry argued in a reply brief filed last week at the trade court (Government of Israel v. United States, CIT # 24-00197).
After the Court of International Trade’s remand of the Commerce Department’s countervailing duty review of Chinese-origin multilayered wood flooring (see 2504030070), the department maintained its decisions to both use a larger, less-specific dataset for calculating Tier II benchmarks over a smaller, more-specific one and to apply adverse facts available for the Chinese government’s refusal to provide government documents showing non-ownership (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00210).