The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 6 order consolidated four cases contesting the International Trade Commission's decision that led to the antidumping duty order on raw honey from Vietnam. The four nearly identical cases argue that, contrary to the ITC's findings, the Vietnamese import volume hasn't jumped enough to undermine the remedial effect of the antidumping duty order, such as to require a critical circumstances determination (see 2208040065). In the proceeding, the commissioners ruled that imports subject to the affirmative critical circumstances finding are likely to seriously undercut the remedial effect of the AD order on Vietnam, so honey from Vietnam was subject to 90 more days of retroactively imposed duties. The plaintiffs, all represented by Gregory Husisian of Foley & Lardner, contested the decision at the trade court (Sweet Harvest Foods v. U.S., CIT Consol. #22-00188).
A Canadian softwood lumber producer cannot claim to be a successor-in-interest to another lumber company still in existence, the government argued in a Sept. 6 brief at the Court of International Trade (GreenFirst Forest Products, v. United States, CIT # 22-00097)
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department erred by including "grossly outdated" data to calculate the benefits derived from the provision of land for less than adequate remuneration in a countervailing duty review, plaintiffs led by JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co. said in a Sept. 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Further, the plaintiffs railed against Commerce's use of adverse facts available over the alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program and its decision to use certain lease rates to calculate the benefits for JA Solar's reported leases, among other things (JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00232).
The Commerce Department, in seeking to have countervailing duty respondents verify that neither they nor their U.S. customers benefited from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, implemented requirements "so onerous" as to make verification "out of reach," plaintiff Dalian Mesien Woodworking Co. said in Sept. 6 comments on Commerce's remand results. Adding to the rebuke of Commerce's submission to the Court of International Trade, plaintiff-intervenor The Ancientree Cabinet Co. argued that the agency's verification process flies in the face of the court's directive to find a "practical solution to verify the non-use" of the EBCP (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00110).
Antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube Co. will appeal an August Court of International Trade ruling that found that the Commerce Department properly excluded dual-stenciled pipe from the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, according to the Sept. 2 notice of appeal. The petitioner will take its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. At CIT, Judge Stephen Vaden ruled that no line pipe was made in Thailand when the original AD investigation was conducted almost 40 years ago and that the International Trade Commission made no harm finding for line or dual-stenciled pipe from Thailand (see 2208260024) (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00133).
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 1 order dismissed a customs classification spat over footwear brought by importer Ever Union International. Stephen Swindell, deputy clerk at the court, said that the action was previously placed on the customs case management calendar and was not removed at the expiration of the period of time of removal. The dispute was over the appraised value of the merchandise, as the importer claimed first sale appraisal, though CBP refused to reliquidate the footwear at the price paid by the middleman to the manufacturer (Ever Union International v. United States, CIT #18-00183).
The Commerce Department violated the law by simply averaging ocean freight data from Xeneta and Descartes to value ocean freight in a benchmark calculation in a countervailing duty review, respondent Risen Energy Co. argued in a Sept. 1 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce should have used just the Xeneta data since it is the only source that fulfilled the agency's regulatory guidelines for the cost of ocean freight, Risen said. The respondent also railed against Commerce's use of total adverse facts available over Risen's U.S. customers' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program -- a move repeatedly struck down by the trade court (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00231).
Specialty medical foods designed for infants and toddlers should be classified as medicaments and also enter duty-free under special Chapter 98 tariff provisions for articles for the handicapped, Nutricia North America said in an Aug. 31 motion at the Court of International Trade. Nutricia has asked the court to order CBP to classify the products under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. subheading 3004.50.5040, with a secondary classification under HTSUS subheading 9817.00.96, to reliquidate the subject entries, and to issue refunds plus interest to Nutricia (Nutricia North America v. U.S., CIT #16-00008).
The U.S. cannot ignore commercial reality when arguing against the fact that importer Bral Corporation contracted for defect-free merchandise, Bral argued in a Sept. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Bral is seeking to establish a valid claim for an allowance -- a move the U.S. contests by arguing that the importer failed to produce any documents to detail the quantity, sizes or specifications of its imported plywood. Bral said that while this may be true, it's clear from other evidence that Bral developed the specifications for the imports over a significant period that led to the import of its plywood products (Bral Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-00154).