The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Indian aluminum sheet exporter Hindalco Industries brought a complaint Jan. 10 to the Court of International Trade, saying the Commerce Department wrongly found to be specific programs by which Hindalco had been provided bauxite mining rights and coal and bauxite by the government of India for less-than-adequate remuneration (Hindalco Industries v. United States, CIT # 24-00234).
The Commerce Department unlawfully chose to break with its past practice of not considering subsidies provided by the Russian government prior to April 1, 2002, in a countervailing duty review on phosphate fertilizers, respondent JSC Apatit argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Jan. 9, Apatit argued that Commerce failed to apply this cut-off date when analyzing whether mining rights were provided to the company for less than adequate remuneration in the 2022 review of the CVD order (Joint Stock Company Apatit v. United States, CIT # 24-00226).
Importer Florida Power & Light Company argued Jan. 9 that the Commerce Department had unreasonably elevated one country-of-origin factor -- research and development -- in importance above the other four in an antidumping duty review of solar cells from Cambodia (see 2412260039) (BYD (H.K.) Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00221).
The Commerce Department announced Jan. 8 that, on remand, it was still maintaining use of partial adverse facts available for steel exporter Nippon Steel in a review of hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan. It said it wasn’t enough that the exporter’s affiliate was refusing to provide certain requested information, nor that the exporter was prevented by Japanese law from making provision of that information a contractual obligation of the affiliate (Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00533).
The Commerce Department failed to justify its finding that a subsidy to exporter OCP from a program for relief from tax fines and penalties was de facto specific, the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 8. Remanding the countervailing duty investigation on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco for a second time, Judge Timothy Stanceu said the agency's altered defense of its specificity finding was no less "absurd" than it was in the first go-round.
Responding to a motion for judgment, the U.S. stood up for the Commerce Department’s scope ruling that pencil importer School Specialty’s products weren’t substantially transformed in the Philippines and should be subject to antidumping duties on pencils from China (School Specialty v. U.S., CIT # 24-00098).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 8 heard oral argument in the massive Section 301 litigation, primarily probing the litigants' positions regarding how to interpret the term "modify" in the statute and whether the statute allows the U.S. trade representative to impose duties in response to retaliatory measures from China (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed a lower court's dismissal of sugar producer North American Surgar Industries' suit against five companies for allegedly trafficking the company's property, which was stolen by the Cuban government. Judges Charles Wilson, Robert Luck and Barbara Lagoa held that the lower court incorrectly found that the alleged violations of the Helms-Burton Act only occurred in Cuba (North American Sugar Industries v. Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology, 11th Cir. # 23-10126).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York: