Customs Duty

The Court of International Trade on June 17 (see 2406170037) -- in an opinion released publicly July 10 -- upheld a CBP finding that six companies didn’t evade antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China by transshipping them through the Dominican Republic. Judge Richard Eaton explained that CBP had reasonably reinterpreted record evidence within the context of other information it had failed to consider previously.

The Court of International Trade sustained CBP's finding that Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio didn't evade antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. In a June 13 decision made public July 8, Judge Richard Eaton said Kingtom responded to all U.S. requests for information during an Enforce and Protect Act investigation, precluding the use of adverse facts available. He also said the court can't ignore "the total lack of any record evidence of any imports by Kingtom into the Dominican Republic" of aluminum extrusions made in China.

A hardwood plywood importer that won its 2022 case against an affirmative evasion finding is seeking payment of its court expenses and attorney’s fees from the U.S. government. The importer on July 8 said CBP’s investigation against it had never been supported by substantial evidence and was instead the result of “bad acts” and “various violations of federal regulations” by the government (Interglobal Forest v. U.S., CIT # 22-00240).

The Court of International Trade heard oral argument last week on the government's motion for alternative service in a customs penalty case against German paper exporter Koehler Oberkirch. The U.S. claimed that it was proper to serve Koehler via its U.S. counsel, attorneys at Holland and Knight, while the exporter said the government should have sought service through "diplomatic channels" (U.S. v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, CIT # 24-00014).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Litigants in a pair of cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit jumped on the U.S. Supreme Court's move last week to axe the principle of agency deference when interpreting ambiguous statutes (see 2406280051). In notices of supplemental authority, two importers told the appellate court that the Court of International Trade relied on the now-defunct Chevron deference standard.

The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated June 17-27 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):

Importer Nutricia North America filed an amended opening brief in a customs case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on its substances used to "treat life-treatening diseases in young children," after government attorneys asked for the revisions. The brief was amended in two spots (Nutricia North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1436).

The Supreme Court of the U.S. on June 28 overturned a hallmark of administrative law that had stood for four decades: the court's principle of deferring to federal agencies' interpretation of ambiguous statutes established in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

The Commerce Department reduced the antidumping duty rate for a collapsed entity, made up of exporter Siemens Gamesa, affiliated supplier Windar Renovables and five of Windar's subsidiaries, from 73% to 28.55% after reverting to the use of partial adverse facts available for the entity (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. U.S., CIT # 21-00449).