Mediation in a customs penalty case did not result in a settlement, the Court of International said in a May 30 report. Judge Leo Gordon sat as the mediator and declared that the process wrapped up on May 26 without a result. The U.S. filed the suit alleging that 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 previously 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).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department correctly reconsidered ministerial error comments in recalculating antidumping duty rates in its remand results on the 2018-19 administrative review on heavy walled rectangular welded steel pipes and tubes from Mexico, DOJ said in its May 25 response to remand comments at the Court of International Trade (Nucor Tubular Products v. U.S., CIT # 21-00543).
The Commerce Department incorrectly valued imported coal during an antidumping review on activated carbon from China, using a tariff schedule code for coal that was less specific than required and failing to use the best available data for valuing coal tar pitch inputs, Jilin Bright Future Chemicals said in a May 25 motion for judgment (Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00336).
The Court of International Trade should not stay a case challenging an Enforce and Protect Act finding of evasion while another related case on whether the products were covered by the scope of the relevant antidumping and countervailing duty orders goes through remand, importers argued in a May 24 motion (Far East American, et. al. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00213).
Appellant and importer Smith-Cooper International asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for 3,000 more words in its reply brief as part of a suit on scope case on Vandewater International's steel branch outlets. SCI said appellant Sigma Corp. and the U.S. consented to the request and that good cause exists to allow the company to use more words given the "voluminous nature of the Government’s response brief, covering numerous procedural issues and questions of law and fact." In its reply brief, the government most recently argued that SCI relies too much on industry terms to argue that the steel branch outlets in question are not butt-welded and aren't subject to the antidumping duty order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China (see 2304240058) (Vandewater International v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).
The Commerce Department illegally found that upholstered furniture imported by Amini Innovation Corp. was subject to the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China, the company argued in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. Amini said that its furniture, sold as different collections under its AICO brand differ from the in-scope furniture "in terms of physical characteristics, expectations of ultimate purchasers, ultimate use, channels of trade, and the manner in which they were advertised" (Amini Innovation Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00090).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Although the Commerce Department in an antidumping duty proceeding found that GreenFirst Forest is the successor-in-interest to Rayonier A.M. Canada (RYAM), it concurrently found in a countervailing duty proceeding that the same acquisition was a "significant change," GreenFirst told the Court of International Trade. Even though Commerce uses different standards for starting AD and CVD changed circumstances reviews, GreenFirst thought it was significant that the agency analyzed the acquisition and found "there were no relevant changes to its structure and operations following the acquisition” (GreenFirst Forest Products v. U.S., CIT # 22-00097).
The Commerce Department committed several errors in its antidumping duty administrative review on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico, which resulted in higher AD rates assigned to respondents Maquilacero and TEFLU, as well as the "all-others" rate assigned to plaintiff Perfiles, the company said in a May 23 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Perfiles LM v. U.S., CIT # 23-00094). The company asked the court to remand the review to Commerce.