Importer Vecoplan on June 17 dismissed one of its customs cases at the Court of International Trade regarding the classification of its grinding machines (Vecoplan v. United States, CIT # 20-00106).
After two remands by Court of International Trade Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, the Commerce Department continued to sustain its use of Brazilian and Malaysian surrogate data in the final results of its 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, again assigning a plaintiff exporter a 16.17% AD margin (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00190).
A Turkish rebar exporter and the government held oral arguments last week over the countervailability of a Turkish subsidy that Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann implied could be considered de jure, but not de facto, specific. They also debated the reliability of a report on land benchmark prices that was prepared specifically for litigation and that included government rates (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #23-00131).
The Court of International Trade on June 20 sustained the International Trade Commission's five-year sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hot-rolled steel from Turkey. Exporter Erdemir claimed that the ITC's finding that injury would likely recur if the orders went away was invalid because later developments rendered the underlying injury determination invalid. Judge Gary Katzmann rejected this claim, saying the original injury finding "remains a final and binding agency action." The judge noted that the finality of unrevoked administrative decisions is "particularly important in the trade context" because of the need for "beacons of certainty."
The Court of International Trade dismissed importer Greentech Energy Solutions' challenge to antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese solar cells to its Vietnamese solar cell entries for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction.
A plaintiff and glycine importer filed a brief June 13 at the Court of International Trade supporting inclusion into its case’s record a prior August 2033 scope ruling application, made by the plaintiff and denied by the Commerce Department, that the plaintiff said provided important context for its overall case (Deer Park Glycine v. U.S., CIT # 24-00016).
Answering a question put forth to both parties by the Court of International Trade (see 2405230059), the U.S. said June 12 that CBP had made only a ministerial decision to liquidate a tire importer’s entries after being told to do so by the Commerce Department; and ministerial decisions, it argued, are not protestable and thus can't be litigated under 28 U.S.C. 1581(a) (Acquisition 362 v. U.S., CIT # 24-00011).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential June 17 order sustained CBP's remand results in an aluminum extrusions antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case in which the agency dropped its finding that Global Aluminum and importer Hialeah Aluminum Supply evaded the order (see 2301100033) (H&E Home v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00337).
The Commerce Department reconsidered on remand its model match hierarchy in the antidumping duty investigation on superabsorbent polymers (SAP) from South Korea, opting to go with the hierarchy made of centrifugal retention capacity "in 6 g/g increments" it used in the investigation's preliminary determination but not in the final decision (The Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers v. United States, CIT # 23-00010).
The Court of International Trade in a June 10 decision made public June 18 dismissed importer Greentech Energy Solutions' Section 1581(i) challenge to the assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties on its solar cells for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Greentech imported solar cells from Vietnam but was hit with AD/CVD on Chinese solar cells, protesting the decision. The protest was suspended once the importer brought the present case, which challenged the imposition of the AD/CVD under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction. Judge Mark Barnett said remedy under Section 1581(a), as a challenge to a CBP decision, was not "manifestly inadequate" because the agency has a role in addressing the importer's claims. The court said "it appears that CBP reasonably intended to resolve Greentech’s claims during the protest proceeding," giving the importer a "bona fide opportunity to avoid liability."