After a fifth remand order, the Commerce Department assigned a zero percent all-others dumping margin in a less-than-fair-value investigation onf certain hardwood plywood products from China, according to remand results released March 16 (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co., Ltd., et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 18-00002).
The Commerce Department accepted ministerial errors originally rejected as untimely in an antidumping duty proceeding on remand at the Court of International Trade, raising the dumping rates for the two respondents should the remand results be sustained. Commerce corrected errors in respondent Prolamsa's currency conversion and respondent Maquilacero's quarterly cost methodology in the 2018-19 administrative review of the AD order on heavy walled rectangular welded steel pipes and tubes from Mexico, causing their AD rates to rise from zero percent to 2.11% for Prolamsa and to 3.48% for Maquilacero (Nucor Tubular Products v. United States, CIT # 21-00543).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on March 16 refused to accept a second motion to dismiss from Zhe "John" Liu, a defendant in a penalty case, since it "is not a motion provided for by the rules of the court." Judge Jane Restani ruled that Liu's "excuse" for filing the second motion -- that "something signficant" intervened -- "is not well-taken." The trade court instead accepted Liu's first motion to dismiss, and told Liu to make sure future filings align with court rules (United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).
The Court of International Trade on March 16 referred a customs penalty case to mediation, staying the proceedings until June 30. DOJ alleges 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 recently 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).
Mixes of frozen fruits should be classified under tariff provisions for food preparations, rather than in a subheading for "other" frozen fruits, because the latter provision is for frozen fruits other than the fruits listed in the relevant heading rather than complete fruit mixtures, importer Nature's Touch argued in a March 13 suplemental brief (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West). v. U.S., CIT # 20-00131).
The Commerce Department impermissably favored one side through a series of actions around a scope ruling on ceramic tiles from China, including an exclusive meeting with a domestic tile producer that unfairly prejudiced the agency, importers Elysium Tiles and Elysium Tile Florida said in a March 16 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Elysium Tiles v. U.S., CIT # 23-00041).
CBP failed to consider the "double transformation" of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) chips as inputs into PET film from Bahrain, instead treating the chips as non-originating material for purposes of the minimum value content calculation, Bahrainian importer JBF told the Court of International Trade in a March 16 complaint. The suit challenges CBP's denial of duty-free treatment under the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement for goods manufactured by JBF and CBP's refusal to deduct a post-import rebate from the price paid for PET chips, which are a component of PET film (JBF Bahrain v. U.S., CIT # 23-00067).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 15 dismissed a case on whether importer Root Sciences' cannabis cure extract recovery machines should be seized as drug paraphernalia after CBP and Root agreed to a settlement (see 2303070060). CBP agreed to release the merchandise to the importer, given the Court of International Trade's ruling in Eteros Technologies USA v. U.S., in which the court said that the U.S. can't seize or forfeit imports that are federally deemed "drug paraphernalia" but whose delivery, possession and manufacture were made legal at the state level (see 2209210034). Root agreed to drop the suit as part of the settlement (Root Sciences v. U.S., Fed Cir. # 22-1795).