A domestic petitioner and Indian exporters argued over how an adverse facts available antidumping duty rate for one respondent should factor into the rate for non-individually examined respondents in the Commerce Department's 2020 administrative review on quartz surface products from India (Cambria Company v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00007).
Countervailing duty petitioner Daikin America will appeal an October Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's decision to drop its subsidy finding against exporter Gujarat Fluorochemicals concerning a 30-year land lease to one of its affiliates, Inox Wind Limited, by India's State Industrial Development Corp. The trade court said the subsidy finding couldn't be legal due to Commerce's interpretation of its regulation, which says the agency will attribute -- to the affiliates' combined sales -- subsidies received by related input suppliers whose inputs are mainly dedicated to the production of downstream merchandise. The court ruled the provision of electricity is not primarily dedicated to the production of granular polytetrafluorethylene, the subject of the CVD investigation, adding that Commerce misunderstood the production chain (see 2310160026) (Gujarat Fluorochemicals v. United States, CIT # 22-00120).
The Commerce Department asked the Court of International Trade for a voluntary remand on Dec. 11 in a countervailing duty case so it can reconsider or further explain its calculations for the ocean freight benchmark in light of a recent CIT ruling questioning the use of Descartes data. The present suit concerns the 2021 administrative review of the CVD order on solar products from China in which Commerce only used Descartes data to set the benchmark, prompting the case from solar cell exporters, led by Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co. (Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00219).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 8 lifted a stay in an Enforce and Protect Act case following its decision in the key Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. case. In that decision, the appellate court said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not giving it access to the confidential information in the proceeding (see 2307270038). The present case concerns an EAPA investigation on the alleged transshipment of Chinese xanthan gum via India and was stayed pending the resolution of Royal Brush, given the overlap in the due process claims (see 2310170034). The U.S. is now attempting to distinguish its present situation from Royal Brush, arguing that the Federal Circuit's recent decision is irrelevant since "the facts here are materially different" seeing as liquidation became final in the present spat given that the importer didn't appeal its denied protest at CBP (All One God Faith v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).
The Court of International Trade extended the mediation period for a case brought by Evraz challenging the Commerce Department's denial of the importer's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests. In the Dec. 11 text-only order, the trade court gave the parties until June 30, 2024, to resolve litigation led by Judge Leo Gordon. Evraz called for mediation, along with other litigants, to discuss the availability of a remedy for already liquidated entries (Evraz Inc. v. United States, CIT # 20-03869).
A U.S. gun sights importer again argued in the Court of International Trade on Dec. 8 that its products should be classified under the tariff schedule as “apparatuses,” not as “light fittings,” because the latter provision didn't fully cover the sights’ use of ionizing radiation (Trijicon Inc. v. United States, CIT # 22-00040).
The Court of International Trade must dismiss a customs suit from importer Sucden Americas Corp. related to its sugar imports because the company didn't protest the liquidation of its entries or the denials of its post-importation preference claims, the U.S. said Dec. 11. Because of the failure to protest, the government said, the court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction over the suit under Section 1581(a) (Sucden Americas Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00228).
Importer R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. voluntarily dismissed its customs classification suit at the Court of International Trade Dec. 7. The company contested CBP's denial of its protest claiming its mixtures for use in personal electronic vaporizing devices of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3824.99.9280, dutiable at 5%, should be classified under subheading 8543.90.8850, free of duty. Counsel for R.J. Reynolds didn't respond to our request for comment (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00621).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 8 denied the government's motion to dismiss Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninestar's suit against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List following a court order finding that CIT has the jurisdiction to hear challenges to inclusion on the UFLPA Entity List. Judge Gary Katzmann said the motion was moot, denying it without prejudice to a renewed motion to dismiss after Ninestar's filing of its amended complaint (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
Antidumping duty petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood will appeal an October Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's fifth remand results in the AD investigation on hardwood plywood products from China. The court upheld Commerce'se separate rate calculation along with its decisions to exclude Jiangyang Wood and Dehua TB from the AD order, and to include Sanfortune Wood and Longyuan Wood within the order (see 2310100045). As stated in the notice of appeal, the coalition will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 18-00002).