Three different solar cell and module exporters recently filed their opening briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a pair of cases on the Commerce Department's findings that the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese solar cells and modules are being circumvented through Thailand and Cambodia (Trina Solar Science & Technology (Thailand) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1940) (BYD (H.K.) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1937).
Agreeing that the International Trade Commission isn’t required to determine that imports “surged” prior to the publication of antidumping or countervailing duty orders to find critical circumstances, a domestic pea protein producer supported Oct. 8 the ITC’s own explanation of the relevant standard (see 2509290056) (NURA USA v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00182).
In a complaint filed Oct. 8, exporter Tao Motor challenged the International Trade Commission’s affirmative injury and critical circumstances findings regarding golf carts from China. It said that imposing the Commerce Department’s recently calculated antidumping duty and countervailing duty rates would end all importation of Chinese-origin golf carts into the U.S. (Tao Motor v. United States, CIT # 25-00199).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held oral argument in importer Nutricia's customs suit on the classification of various of the company's medical foods with Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark probing Nutricia's claim that its products are "medicaments" and not "food preparations." During the argument, which was held on Oct. 8 in Boston as part of the court's efforts to schedule arguments outside Washington, D.C., Taranto stressed that the case largely turns on the definition of the term "dietetic" (Nutricia North America v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1436).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 8 held that the Commerce Department's "cross-ownership regulation" turns on whether the purpose of the subsidy provided to a cross-owned input provider "is to benefit the production of both the input and downstream products." In clarifying how the regulation is to be applied, Judges Jimmie Reyna, William Bryson and Kara Stoll held that the Court of International Trade was right to reject Commerce's application of this regulation to countervailing duty respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals in the countervailing duty investigation on polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from India.
During oral argument held Sept. 3 at the Court of International Trade, Judge Mark Barnett expressed skepticism about an argument that negative antidumping duty and countervailing duty determinations regarding a product preclude the Commerce Department from starting circumvention inquiries into the same product (SeAH Steel Vina Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00256, -00257, -00258).
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.
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pressed counsel for importer Blue Sky the Color of Imagination and the government during oral argument on Oct. 7 in the importer's customs classification suit on its notebooks with calendars. During the argument, Judges Alan Lourie, Raymond Chen and William Bryson grappled with whether the court is bound by its 2010 ruling in Mead v. U.S. and whether the goods are properly classified as calendars or diaries (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1710).
In the Oct. 1 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 59, No. 40), CBP published proposals to modify or revoke ruling letters concerning the tariff classification of men’s outerwear jackets from China.