The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 17 issued its mandate in a countervailing duty case on the application of the Commerce Department's cross-ownership regulation to respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals in the CVD investigation on polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from India (see 2510080027). Last month, the court said the 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." The court said the Court of International Trade was right to reject Commerce's application of this regulation to Gujarat (Gujarat Fluorochemicals v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1268).
The Commerce Department reasonably decided not to attribute subsidies provided to Nur Gemicilik, an affiliated input supplier of countervailing duty respondent Kaptan Demir, to Kaptan itself in the 2018 CVD review on Turkish rebar, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Nov. 17. Judges Raymond Chen, Richard Linn and Todd Hughes said Commerce properly identified that the unprocessed steel scrap Nur provided Kaptan was a "common input" and that the agency didn't place undue weight on consideration of Nur's main business activity.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 17 held that five types of medical foods imported by Nutricia North America are properly classified as "medicaments" and not as "food preparations." Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark overruled the Court of International Trade's decision, which came to the opposite conclusion, finding that Nutricia's products are properly found to be medicaments under duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3004.50.5040.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 17 held that five types of medical foods imported by Nutricia North America are properly classified as "medicaments" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3004 and not as "food preparations" under heading 2106. Reversing the Court of International Trade's decision, Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark found that Nutricia's goods plainly fall within heading 3004, particularly due to the fact that they qualify as "medical foods" as defined by Congress and the FDA in implementing the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Taranto, writing for the court, added that the entries aren't excluded from heading 3004 due to Chapter 30's note 1(a), which says Chapter 30 doesn't include foods or beverages "(such as dietetic, diabetic or fortified foods, food supplements, tonic beverages and mineral waters), other than nutritional preparations for intravenous administration."
President Donald Trump may look to ramp up his use of sections 232 and 301 should the Supreme Court rule that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act can't be used for levying tariffs, various lawyers told us. However, the expanded use of these statutes, both as they are being used now and how they may be used to supplant the existing reciprocal and fentanyl trafficking tariffs, may encounter legal difficulties.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 17 sustained the Commerce Department's decision not to attribute subsidies received by Nur, an affiliated input supplier of countervailing duty respondent Kaptan Demir, to Kaptan in the 2018 CVD review of Turkish rebar. Juges Raymond Chen, Richard Linn and Todd Hughes held that the Court of International Trade didn't abuse its discretion in initially remanding the review. They said that Commerce properly found that the "unprocessed steel scrap" provided by Nur "was a common input used in a variety of products and industries" and that "Nur’s business activities were not dedicated almost exclusively to the production of a higher value-added product."
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 12 granted default judgment against importer Rago Tires for negligence in importing tires by not declaring the goods as subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese truck and bus tires. Judge Joseph Laroski ordered Rago to pay a $14,108.87 penalty.
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 12 held that the deadline for filing a complaint isn't a jurisdictional issue. As a result, Judge Richard Eaton said he had the power to vacate the dismissal of a case from various exporters in an antidumping duty case, which was issued due to the exporters' failure to timely file a complaint.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade: