The Court of International Trade's recent decision on the customs classification of frozen fruit mixtures supports the government's arguments in a customs spat on importer Second Nature Design's imports of dried botanical items used in home decor, the U.S. said in a notice of supplemental authority. Acknowledging that the trade court's recent opinion in Nature's Touch Frozen Foods v. U.S. is not final, the government nevertheless said that Judge Stephen Vaden's opinion backs its case (Second Nature Designs v. United States, CIT # 17-00271).
The Commerce Department correctly determined that Korean exporter SeAH Steel failed to cooperate fully in a countervailing duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Korea because SeAH waited until verification to provide information that should have been submitted in response to an initial questionnaire, a group of defendant-intervenors led by Borusan Mannesmann Pipe said in their May 30 response brief. Because SeAH failed to act to the best of its ability, Commerce's application of adverse facts available was warranted, Borusan said (SeAH Steel v. U.S., CIT # 22-00338).
Antidumping petitioner Nucor Tubular Products' motion to dismiss a suit on an AD review of steel pipes and tubes from South Korea fails to consider all of exporter HiSteel's claims, the exporter argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. While Nucor claims a Commerce Department reversal of its adjustments to HiSteel's costs and scrap offset as a result of the transactions disregarded rule will not change the company's margin, HiSteel said the true effect on its margin is unknown given its remaining claim against Commerce's differential pricing analysis (DPA) (HiSteel v. U.S., CIT # 22-00142).
The Court of International Trade granted exporter Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co.'s motion to sever its case from a suit filed by Nippon Steel challenging the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Japan, and dismiss its case. Judge Stephen Vaden also granted Tokyo Steel's request to dissolve the injunction suspending liquidation of the company's hot-rolled steel products. The exporter initially filed the case to contest the Commerce Department's deduction of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from respondent Nippon Steel's U.S. price (Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00180).
The Court of International Trade approved exporter Octal's bid to voluntarily dismiss its suit against the Commerce Department's 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate resin from Oman. Octal launched the suit challenging Commerce's changes to the date of sale for Octal's U.S. sales. The exporter argued the agency should have used the date when the relevant price index was published rather than the invoice date, and the change resulted in an erroneous 3.96% dumping margin for the exporter (Octal Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00352).
CBP misclassified low noise blocks and switches over a series of entries between 2016 and 2018 as "transmission apparatus for radio-broadcasting," rather than as duty-free "telephone sets,' Global Invacom said in a May 30 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Global Invacom Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00261).
The Commerce Department correctly reconsidered Nucor’s ministerial error allegations in recalculating antidumping duty rates for Prolamsa and Maquilacero in its remand results on the 2018-19 administrative review on heavy walled rectangular welded steel pipes and tubes from Mexico, Nucor said in May 26 response comments to the remand redetermination at the Court of International Trade (Nucor Tubular Products v. U.S., CIT # 21-00543).
The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's fifth remand redetermination on the antidumping duty investigation on certain hardwood plywood products from China, said the government, a group of consolidated plaintiffs, and a defendant-intervenor, in a series of response briefs at the Court of International Trade (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co., Ltd., et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 18-00002).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ordered parties in a False Claims Act case to file supplemental briefs on whether 19 U.S.C. 1592 has the exclusive means for recovering antidumping duties an importer illegally avoided paying via false statements, or whether the False Claims Act can also be used to recover the duties. Referred to as Section 592, the statute is the part of the Tariff Act of 1930 covering customs penalties for fraud, gross negligence and negligence. The court told the parties, including appellant Sigma Corp. and the U.S., to file the brief by June 26 (Island Industries Inc. v. Sigma Corp., 9th Cir. # 22-55063).
Mediation in a customs penalty case did not result in a settlement, the Court of International said in a May 30 report. Judge Leo Gordon sat as the mediator and declared that the process wrapped up on May 26 without a result. The U.S. filed the suit alleging that Crown Cork & Seal USA misclassified its metal can lid imports, valued at around $51 million, underpaying around $1.3 million in duties between 2004 and 2009. The trade court previously denied Crown Cork's bid to dismiss fraud and gross negligence claims in the case (see 2302280053) (U.S. v. Crown Cork & Seal USA, CIT # 21-00361).