A text-only order Sept. 15 of the three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade granted the motion for leave filed by three importers to enter into the record of the Section 301 litigation their previously unexpected amicus brief in the Section 301 litigation (see 2209140054). Verifone, Drone Nerds and Specialized Bicycle Components argued in the brief for the lists 3 and 4A tariffs to be vacated for Administrative Procedure Act violations at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative that remain uncured after the agency filed its Aug. 1 remand determination. The three importers are “interested parties” to the litigation, as they are “individual claimants” among the thousands of Section 301 lawsuits filed, and because they “do business in and with China,” their motion said (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).
A recent Court of International decision in a countervailing duty case is relevant to a case brought by The Mosaic Co. over the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation into phosphate fertilizers from Mexico, CVD respondent OCP told the Court of International Trade. The decision in the past case, also brought by Mosaic, said Commerce reasonably excluded freight, import duties and value-added tax from the tier-three benchmark price for phosphate rock (see 2209020061) (The Mosaic Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #21-00116).
The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's determination that the South Korean government's provision of port usage rights constitutes a countervailable benefit, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 15 reply brief. Responding to respondent Hyundai Steel, Commerce said, contrary to what the company says, there is no evidence to show that the period of port usage for which Hyundai does not pay fees was specifically calculated to match the costs incurred by Hyundai for building the port (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT #21-00304).
Automated shade machines are neither "curtains" nor " builders' wares" but are complex machines classifiable in the tariff schedule as appliances with individual functions, importer Lutron said in a Sept. 14 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Lutron Electronics v. U.S., CIT #22-00264).
The omission of certain documents related to service-related revenues (SRRs) in an antidumping review does not warrant the use of total adverse facts available, respondent Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems argued in a Sept. 15 brief at the Court of International Trade. Nor does the respondent's failure to report a sale of a large power transformer that the Commerce Department believed was made in South Korea, Hyundai said in vying for partial AFA (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems v. U.S., CIT #20-00108).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade was wrong to dismiss the government's case against importer Katana Racing seeking to collect over $5.7 million in unpaid duties due to an expired statute of limitations, the U.S. argued in its Sept. 13 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government's suit was in fact timely filed since Katana could not revoke its waiver of the statute of limitations, the brief said. The U.S. said no law backs the finding that such a waiver could be revoked and stop the government from filing suit for unpaid duties, and that the trade court's ruling "leads to absurd results" (U.S. v. Katana Racing, Fed. Cir. #22-1832).
The Commerce Department properly found that a particular EU subsidy to Spanish olive growers was de facto specific, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 14 opinion. After previously remanding the case twice, Judge Gary Katzmann this time bought Commerce's rationale for its de facto specificity finding, along with the agency's conclusion that demand for ripe olives -- the subject merchandise -- was substantially dependent on the demand for certain raw olive varietals.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiffs in a case challenging President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels reserved all their rights to the extent that the plaintiffs are affected by the U.S.'s inadvertent liquidations of the entries at issue in the action, the plaintiffs said in a Sept. 13 reply brief. The reserved rights include, but are not limited to, "opposing the Government’s actions and legal authority to void liquidations without court approval and without providing specificity that would allow for meaningful comment, the brief said (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, CIT #20-03941).