The Tariff Act's customs penalty statute, and not the False Claims Act, governs customs penalties for fraud, gross negligence and negligence, and is the exclusive means to recover liquidated antidumping duties, appellant Sigma told the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the 9th Circuit in a June 12 brief. Responding to the court's order for supplemental briefing on the two laws, Sigma said 19 U.S.C. 1592 is more specific than the False Claims Act and has a "detailed and comprehensive legal regime," including specific provisions addressing customs fraud (Island Industries v. Sigma, 9th Cir. # 22-55063).
The Court of International Trade granted countervailing duty petitioner Nucor's bid to dismiss its case on the 2019 CVD administrative review on hot-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. Nucor claimed the Commerce Department erred by finding the South Korean government's provision of electricity below cost conferred a non-measurable benefit. The company dismissed the case after having all parties sign a stipulation of dismissal (Nucor v. U.S., CIT # 22-00171).
The International Trade Commission was not required in a sunset review to cumulate imports of cold-rolled steel from Brazil with subject imports from five other countries under consideration, it argued in a June 13 brief at the Court of International Trade (Cleveland-Cliffs v. U.S., CIT # 22-00257).
The Commerce Department assigned exporter Double Coin Holdings the 105.31% China-wide dumping rate in its June 15 remand results filed in a suit on an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on off-the-road tires from China. The trade court previously remanded the case so that Commerce could hit the company with the China-wide rate after finding that Double Coin failed to rebut the presumption of government control (China Manufacturing Alliance v. United States, CIT # 15-00124).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, for failing to file an opening brief. The company filed its suit to contest CBP's inaction on its requests to void two denied protests on Berger's Canvas Banner Matisse coated fabric imports, which were hit with antidumping duties on artist canvas from China. Berger claimed that the imports were not subject to the order and CBP should not have liquidated the entries since the Commerce Department had opened a scope inquiry on the imports. After the Court of International Trade tossed the suit for lack of jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, the Federal Circuit in March rejected Berger's bid for a temporary injunction, which would have required CBP to return the goods to unliquidated status or suspend the firm's protests (see 2303160023) (Printing Textiles, dba Berger Textiles v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1576).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should reconsider its finding that the Commerce Department is prohibited from using a transaction-specific margin when employing total adverse facts available, antidumping duty petitioner American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring argued in a response to a U.S. motion for reconsideration. The petitioner said reconsideration is needed since the court "decided an issue that was not presented by any party" (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group v. U.S., CIT # 19-00144).
The Commerce Department's ruling that GreenFirst Forest Products is the successor to Rayonier A.M. Canada (RYAM) in a changed circumstances review as part of an antidumping duty proceeding does not affect the agency's decision finding that GreenFirst is not RYAM's successor in the parallel countervailing duty proceeding, the U.S. said. Responding to GreenFirst's notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade, the government said standards for initiating a CCR differ for AD and CVD cases (GreenFirst Forest Products v. U.S., CIT # 22-00097).
Countervailing duty petitioner Nucor Corp. moved to voluntarily dismiss its case on the Commerce Department's countervailing duty administrative review on cold-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. The review covered entries in 2020. Nucor filed the case in May and had yet to file its complaint before dismissing the action without listing a reason (Nucor Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00100).
The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's remand results that stuck by the agency's prior finding that importer SMA Surface's "Twilight" surface does not qualify for the crushed glass surface products exclusion from antidumping and countervailing duties on quartz surface products from China (see 2304120063), DOJ said in its June 12 response (SMA Surfaces v. U.S., CIT # 21-00399).