The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Aug. 5-7 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):
Defendant-intervenor Fresh Garlic Producers Association said Aug. 8 that the Commerce Department properly found importer Green Garden Produce circumvented an antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from China (Green Garden Produce v. United States, CIT # 24-00114).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 12 upheld the Commerce Department's determination that importer Valeo North America's T-series aluminum sheet from China fits under the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China. Judges Richard Taranto, Todd Hughes and Kara Stoll disagreed with Valeo that the orders "unambiguously" exclude Valeo's aluminum sheet, finding the phrase "as designated by the Aluminum Association" to be ambiguous. The judges also disagreed with Valeo's claim that its T-series aluminum sheet falls outside the scope of the orders, since it's heat-treated. The court also held that Commerce wasn't required to revoke the suspension instructions it had issued to CBP when it started the scope inquiry after the Court of International Trade remanded the proceeding for the agency to undertake a (k)(2) analysis.
The Commerce Department illegally found that the South Korean government's provision of electricity is de facto specific, the Court of International Trade held on Aug. 8. Judge Jane Restani likened electricity provision to other "generally available and widely used" subsidies, such as "roads, bridges, schools, highways," that the agency is barred from countervailing under the CVD statute.
Cable importer Cyber Power Systems disagreed Aug. 1 that its products are general “power cables” rather than “telecommunications cables,” saying in response to a U.S. cross-motion for judgment that its preferred classification is presumptively correct. The importer also raised a separation of powers argument (Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. United States, CIT # 21-00200).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 5 heard oral argument in a case on the Commerce Department's finding in the countervailing duty investigation on Russian phosphate fertilizers that the Russian government's provision of natural gas was a de facto specific subsidy. Judges Sharon Prost, Jimmie Reyna and Raymond Chen pressed counsel for exporter Industrial Group Phosphorite and the U.S. government on whether the agency properly found that the agrochemical industry is the "predominant user of natural gas" in Russia (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1593).
Importers Learning Resources and Hand2Mind urged the Supreme Court on Aug. 5 to take up their challenge to the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act prior to their case being heard before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on the grounds that the high court may need to do so to hear the case in tandem with the lead lawsuit on the IEEPA tariffs. The importers said the Solicitor General himself suggested this course of action (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
A total of 12 amicus briefs were filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week in conjunction with arguments from two importers challenging the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
Importers Wego and Galleher didn't waive or forfeit their arguments against the Commerce Department's separate antidumping duty rate calculated in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China for the 2016-17 review period, the importers argued in a July 31 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Galleher Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 25-1196).