The Court of International Trade in a June 22 confidential opinion upheld CBP's finding that a group of companies, led by American Pacific Plywood, evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. In a letter to litigants, Judge M. Miller Baker gave the parties until June 29 to review the bracketed information in the opinion. In the case, BP said the companies evaded the duties by transshipping their products through Cambodia. The plaintiffs levied a host of due process violation allegations against CBP and said, among other things, the agency carried out an "unceasing attempt to crucify" exporter LB Wood Cambodia (see 2202040037) (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT # 20-03914).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Korean Emission Trading Scheme (KETS) provided no benefit to Hyundai Steel for the purposes of a countervailing duty review and, in fact, imposed costs, Hyundai said in its June 16 brief in support of a motion for judgment. Hyundai asked the court to remand the review to the Commerce Department, arguing the department's decision to countervail the KETS program was a "perversion of the CVD law" and ignored that the program benefits the South Korean government and operates to Hyundai Steel’s detriment (Hyundai Steel v. U.S., CIT # 22-00170).
The Commerce Department continued to find that importer Valeo North America's T-series aluminum sheet falls under the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum sheet from China, in remand results submitted June 20 at the Court of International Trade. After Judge Mark Barnett sent back the decision for exceeding the limits of a (k)(1) analysis and so the agency could address evidence that Valeo's aluminum sheet undergoes heat treatment, Commerce said that Valeo's T-series sheet does not undergo solution heat-treatment and is subject to duties (Valeo North America v. United States, CIT # 21-00581).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Italian pasta exporters La Molisana and Valdigrano di Flavio Pagani will appeal a Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy. Per the notice of appeal, the exporters will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court said Commerce permissibly refused to adjust its threshold for differentiating between types of pasta in its duty calculations (see 2304240035). La Molisana claimed Commerce's "breakpoint" of 12.5% protein content did not reflect the market reality, but Judge Richard Eaton held that the company's evidence was not applicable industrywide, making it "unreliable and insufficient" (La Molisana v. United States, CIT # 21-00291).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on June 16 in a case on whether the Commerce Department has the statutory authority to conduct expedited countervailing duty reviews. The appellate court said the agency does have the authority under the Uruguay Round Agreement Act's enactment of certain provisions that favor individual company determinations and the URAA's grant of regulatory-implementation power to Commerce (see 2304250061) (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1021).
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina has granted a motion dismissing several claims by We CBD against shipping company Planet Nine Pirvate Air that arose from a CBP seizure of alleged industrial hemp that tested over the THC limit and was destroyed. The court allowed various counterclaims by Planet Nine to proceed and set a trial date in July (We CBD v. Planet Nine Private Air, W.D.N.C. # 21-00352).
The Tariff Act's customs penalty statute, and not the False Claims Act, governs customs penalties for fraud, gross negligence and negligence, and is the exclusive means to recover liquidated antidumping duties, appellant Sigma told the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the 9th Circuit in a June 12 brief. Responding to the court's order for supplemental briefing on the two laws, Sigma said 19 U.S.C. 1592 is more specific than the False Claims Act and has a "detailed and comprehensive legal regime," including specific provisions addressing customs fraud (Island Industries v. Sigma, 9th Cir. # 22-55063).