Customs Duty

The Commerce Department violated the law in its refusal to accept antidumping respondent OCTAL's new factual information attempting to refute the assumption of affiliation between it and one of its U.S. customers, OCTAL argued in a Sept. 2 brief at the Court of International Trade. Following a voluntary remand proceeding meant to give OCTAL a shot at commenting on the affiliation determination, OCTAL blasted the agency for not including its new facts in the case attempting to prove that it is not affiliated with the U.S. customer with which it has an exclusive supply agreement (OCTAL Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03697).

Russell Semmel, former Arent Fox attorney, joined international law firm Bryan Cave's New York office as counsel in the International Trade Practice, the firm announced Aug. 30. With more than a decade of experience, Semmel will continue to advise importers on issues of “tariff classification and valuation; free trade agreements and preference programs; country of origin and marking; drawback; seizures and forfeitures; civil customs penalties; antidumping and countervailing duties; and other laws and regulations enforced by" CBP, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission, Bryan Cave said.

Tapered roller bearing importer Wanxiang America Corporation does not have jurisdiction to challenge guidance issued from the Commerce Department to CBP on the assessment of antidumping duties, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Sept. 2 decision upholding a ruling from the Court of International Trade. Jurisdiction under the court's residual jurisdiction, Section 1581(i), cannot be claimed by "creative pleading," and proper jurisdiction for Wanxiang America's case could have been claimed elsewhere based on the "true nature of the action," the court said. The Federal Circuit pointed to a CIT's denied protest jurisdiction under Section 1581(a), and antidumping and countervailing duty challenge jurisdiction under Section 1581(c), as potential jurisdictional homes for the action.

The record doesn't support the claim that the Commerce Department erred by applying constructed value instead of plaintiff Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited's third-country sales data to Vietnam when calculating normal value in an antidumping review, the Justice Department said in a Sept. 2 brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to ZASF's motion for judgment, DOJ said that instead, record evidence actually shows that Commerce reasonably found that ZASF's sales to its Vietnamese customers were not representative, given evidence showing that the customers were processors and exporters of shrimp to the U.S. market (Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited et al v. United States, CIT #21-00031).

The level of trade in the U.S. is irrelevant to the Universal Tube and Plastic Industries' argument that the Commerce Department incorrectly found there to be only a single level of trade in the home market in an antidumping duty case, plaintiffs led by Universal Tube argued in an Aug. 27 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Seeing as the Department of Justice and the antidumping petitioner repeatedly raised this point to argue against Universal's position, it is unclear whether they did so to confuse the court with "irrelevant" details or just don't "understand the distinctions," the brief said (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 20-03944).

The three-judge panel presiding over the Section 301 litigation at the U.S. Court of International Trade appeared during a brief, 27-minute status conference Sept. 1 to be edging closer to resolving the two-month impasse over suspending the liquidation of customs entries with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Court of International Trade ruling in a Sept. 2 order, finding it does not have jurisdiction to hear Chinese automobile parts exporter Wanxiang America Corporation's lawsuit. Claiming the trade court's residual Section 1581(i) jurisdiction, Wanxiang filed a due process claim against the Commerce Department's guidance to CBP instructing the customs agency to deny Wanxiang the company-specific antidumping duty rate for its tapered roller bearings entries and apply the country-wide rate. The appellate court found it would have had jurisdiction if there were a denied customs protest under Section 1581(a). CAFC also could have had Section 1581(c) jurisdiction if Wanxiang initiated a test shipment and sought an administrative review and remained unsuccessful in pursuing the company-specific rate, the court said.

The Justice Department, in a major Section 301 litigation policy reversal, said Aug. 31 it agreed to stipulate that refunds will be available on liquidated customs entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure if importers prevail in the massive volume of cases inundating the Court of International Trade to vacate the tariffs. Akin Gump lawyers for sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products responded on Aug. 31 that they're "pleased" with the government's stipulation as something the plaintiffs have advocated for months, but not with DOJ's "bewildering" proposal that importers would still be required to file spreadsheet submissions in a CBP repository.

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Operations including the oiling of a machine, the fitting of a transformer to adjust electrical voltage and the uploading of software patches to a machine tool do not constitute manufacturing or use, and do not render the machine tool ineligible for unused merchandise drawback, CBP said in a recent ruling. The operations do not transform the machine tools into a new product but merely make them operational for the end customer, CBP told Knuth Machine in HQ H290897, issued July 28 and publicly released Aug. 26.