The Commerce department’s decision to use the all-others rate from an earlier antidumping duty investigation on quartz surface products to calculate the rate for the non-selected respondents in the first administrative review should be remanded to the agency, AD petitioner Cambria said in a June 30 motion at the Court of International Trade (Cambria Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00007).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on July 5 in importer PrimeSource Building Products' suit on President Donald Trump's move to expand Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to include derivative products. The move comes after the court rejected PrimeSource's request to stay the mandate pending a final disposition by the U.S. Supreme Court on any petition for a writ of certiorari (see 2306270037). In the case, the Federal Circuit said that Trump legally imposed the tariffs beyond procedural time limits, ruling that such action can be taken if it is in line with the original tariffs' plan of action (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).
Neither DOJ nor the Commerce Department provided a definition of the term "easement" in relation to Commerce's finding that a "conditional easement" exempting input supplier Nur Gemicilik from paying rent on land was a good provided by the Turkish government and subject to a less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) analysis, exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret argued in a reply brief (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, CIT # 22-00149).
Covers for smartphones, tablets, and media players made of plastic and silicone are "other articles of plastic" and not "trunks, suitcases ... and similar containers...," importer Incipio Technologies said in a June 29 complaint. CBP initially classified the covers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 4202.92.90 or 4202.99.90, dutiable at 17.6% or 20%. Incipio's prefered subheading of 3926.90.99 carries a duty rate of 5.3%. Incipio asked the court to reliquidate the cases and to order CBP to refund excess duties with interest (Incipio Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 19-00097).
DOJ defended the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available on exporter Grupo Simec in an antidumping duty review due to Simec's failure to timely submit all of the information requested. In a June 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade, DOJ said that even though it granted several extensions to Simec so the company could file its initial and supplemental questionnaires, the exporter failed to timely submit the information in the 2019-20 administrative review of the AD order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico (Grupo Simec v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00202).
A former board member of a Russian state-owned bank asked a federal court to order the U.S. to remove her from a U.S. sanctions list, saying there is “no factual basis” that supports her listing. In a complaint recently filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Elena Titova, a dual Russian and U.K. citizen, said she resigned from her position eight days after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year but was still added to the Treasury Department’s Specially Designated Nationals List even though she hasn’t been designated by any “other nation in the world.”
Tomato exporter Bioparques de Occidente failed to address many of its claims before the Commerce Department in a case on the agency's decision to resume an antidumping duty investigation after the termination of a suspension agreement, the government said in a reply brief. Issuing the brief after the trade court said Bioparques has the jurisdiction to challenge the decision, the U.S. addressed the remainder of the exporter's eight claims, arguing that Commerce's continuation of the investigation was "properly conducted" (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, CIT # 19-00204).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on June 30 granted importer Environment One's bid to dismiss its case seeking Section 301 refunds. The case concerns 31 entries classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8536.50.7000, a duty-free provision subject to Section 301 tariffs. Environment One filed a protest challenging the liquidation, claiming a Section 301 exclusion granted after entry. The company then took to the trade court to claim that the government violated the law by creating a protest requirement for Section 301 refunds despite that statute applying to only certain CBP decisions (see 2210260011) (Environment One v. United States, CIT # 22-00124).
Surety firm American Service Insurance Co. moved to dismiss its customs case at the Court of International Trade. American Service Insurance, serving as a surety for New Image Global, filed the case to contest how CBP weighed its tobacco products and cigar wraps classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2403.91.2000, dutiable at $24.78 per pound. (American Service Insurance Co. v. United States, CIT # 16-00122).