The Commerce Department lacked authority under its regulations to rescind the administrative reviews of two Chinese wood moulding exporters "solely due to a lack of suspended entries," the Court of International Trade held on Sept. 5. Judge Jane Restani said Commerce's regulation, 19 C.F.R. Section 351.213(d)(3), only allows for rescission if there were no entries of the subject merchandise, adding that the regulation doesn't "include or imply a requirement that these entries be suspended."
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 8 dismissed exporter Pipe & Piling's case against the 2022-23 review of the antidumping duty order on large-diameter welded pipe from Canada for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Jane Restani held that Pipe & Piling didn't follow the procedures under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, codified in 19 U.S.C. Section 1516a(g)(3)(B), by failing to notify other interested parties of its intent to seek judicial review. Restani said this requirement is jurisdictional based on the "text and structure" and "operation and context" of the statute.
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 3 dropped two cases on the applicability of Section 301 exclusions from its customs case management calendar for lack of prosecution. Both cases were placed on the calendar and not removed from it at the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal." One case, brought by Warby Parker, was brought to contest CBP's denial of its protest over whether Section 301 duties apply to its frames and lenses classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9004.90.0000 and secondary subheading 9903.88.15 (see 2303070024). The other case, filed by MTD Products, was filed to contest CBP's denial of its protest claiming its gasoline engines of HTS subheading 8407.90.1020, free of duty, and secondary subheading 9903.88.02, should be exempt from Section 301 duties under secondary subheading 9903.88.12 (see 2309130063) (Warby Parker v. U.S., CIT # 23-00042) (MTD Products v. U.S., CIT # 23-00184).
Customs broker applicant Brandon Chen, who challenged a number of CBP’s 2022 licensing exam questions at the trade court seeking credit for at least one more, succeeded Sept. 4. He will receive a passing score on the test (Brandon Chen v. United States, CIT # 24-00208).
The Commerce Department appropriately resorted to total adverse facts available against countervailing duty respondent Pastificio Gentile in the 2021 CVD review of Italian pasta, for failing to report all its affiliated companies, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Sept. 3. However, Judge Mark Barnett remanded the review for Commerce to explain the legal basis under which the agency decided to countervail programs it verified were unused during the period of review as part of the AFA treatment.
In a decision made public Sep. 5, Court of International Trade Judge Lisa Wang determined that exporter BASF Corp.’s product, Betatene, had been properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 2106 as a "dietary supplement," dismissing the exporter’s claim it should have fallen under heading 2936 as a general-use “provitamin.” She said the product isn’t suited for general use.
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 5 said the Commerce Department unlawfully rescinded the antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on wood molding and millwork products from China for exporters China Cornici and RaoPing HongRong Handicrafts. Judge Jane Restani said the agency can't rescind AD/CVD reviews "solely due to a lack of suspended entries" under its regulations. While China Cornici and RaoPing initially mislabeled their entries, the record shows the companies took steps to pay the required duties. Commerce can't just rely on "mislabeled paperwork" in rescinding AD/CVD reviews for exporters and must consider other "important" information, such as prior disclosures and deposits of duties, the court said.
The U.S. and importer Crown Cork & Seal settled a customs penalty case against the importer, filing a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 2. The U.S. filed the suit alleging that Crown Cork & Seal misclassified its metal can lid imports, valued at around $51 million, underpaying around $1.3 million in duties between 2004 and 2009. The trade court previously denied Crown Cork's bid to dismiss fraud and gross negligence claims in the case (see 2302280053), and the case unsuccessfully went through court-led mediation (see 2305300066). The terms of the settlement are unknown (U.S. v. Crown Cork & Seal USA, CIT # 21-00361).
Importer Eteros Technologies and its CEO, Aaron McKellar, filed an amended complaint in a court in Washington state in their case against CBP for allegedly retaliating against the company and its executive for winning a customs case at the Court of International Trade. The complaint added two more executives, Amanda James, director of strategy and business development at Eteros Canada and Eteros USA, and Ryan Bjergso, a senior executive at Eteros USA, alleging that both also suffered "adverse" immigration consequences due to CBP's retaliatory actions (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, W.D. Wash. # 2:25-00181).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 3 sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel plate from Italy, in a confidential decision. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Claire Kelly gave the parties until Sept. 9 to review the confidential information in the decision. The case was previously before Judge Stephen Vaden, who sent back the agency's use of a quarterly cost methodology to analyze exporter Officine Tecnosider's sales during the review (see 2409170068). On remand, Commerce again chose to calculate the respondent's costs quarterly, rather than annually (see 2501160082) (Officine Tecnosider SRL v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00001).