The Court of International Trade on Aug. 22 asked the government for more information after CBP acknowledged inadvertently liquidating entries subject to an injunction from the court (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00025).
An importer filed Aug. 21 its long-delayed motion for judgment in its test case alleging its Chinese-origin selective catalytic reduction catalysts had wrongly been assessed Section 301 duties. The catalysts were misclassified by CBP as centrifuges instead of “reaction initiators, reaction accelerators and catalytic preparations, not elsewhere specified or included,” it said (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. U.S., CIT #21-00573).
Importer Pitts Enterprises, doing business as Dorsey Intermodal, told the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department illicitly turned the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese chassis and subassemblies thereof into orders covering parts of chassis. Filing a motion for judgment on Aug. 21, Dorsey said the entry of Chinese components in "separate, independent shipments" are "straightforwardly" not covered "unassembled subassemblies" (Pitts Enterprises v. United States, CIT # 24-00030).
After a four-times-remanded case from 2017 reached a conclusion in the Court of International Trade and went to appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. and a petitioner filed opening briefs Aug. 16 defending the trade court's final decision (AG Der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1498).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 15 decision made public Aug. 20 rejected the Commerce Department's determination that some of exporter Megaa Moda's home market sales weren't made "for consumption" in that market. Judge Thomas Aquilino said Commerce must "diligently examine the circumstances surrounding a transaction," and can't simply use a prior CIT decision to say that the agency can't use the trade patterns of a company's customers to find that the sales aren't "for consumption" in the home market.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Importers Wabtec Corp. and Strato filed a scathing motion for judgment on Aug. 19 contesting the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury determination on freight rail couplers from China. The companies contested the commission's decision to rule on the issue at all, seeing as the proceeding was brought just weeks after the commission found that freight rail couplers from China didn't injure the U.S. market (Wabtec Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00157).
ITC Continues to Cumulate Russian, Argentinian, Mexican and Some South Korean OCTG in Injury Finding
Cumulation occurs on the date a petition is filed, not when the International Trade Commission votes, the ITC claimed Aug. 16 in opposition to a Court of International Trade ruling. It said this had been established by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Tenaris Bay City, et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00344).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 19 sustained the Commerce Department's decision not to amend the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber from Canada to revoke the order as to exporter Resolute FP Canada in the sunset review of the order.
After three remands by Court of International Trade Judge Mark Barnett, the Commerce Department on Aug. 15 yet again found that a petitioner’s evidence wasn’t enough for the department to investigate an allegation that the Korean government was providing subsidized electricity to South Korean steel exporters during off-peak hours (Nucor v. U.S., CIT # 21-00182).