The Court of International Trade in a July 1 order granted the U.S.'s motion for entry of confession of judgment in a customs case on imported hardwood plywood from Richmond International Forest Products (RIFP). In all, Richmond filed four cases over 60 entries of hardwood plywood, which CBP classified as of Chinese-origin, assessing antidumping, countervailing and Section 301 duties, along with a merchandise processing fee. RIFP argued that the plywood is from Cambodia, filing a series of protests that CBP denied (Richmond International Forest Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00178).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 1 order denied three Mexican tomato exporters' bid for a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in a case challenging the termination of an antidumping duty suspension agreement. Judges Kimberly Moore, Pauline Newman, Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk, Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto, Raymond Chen, Todd Hughes, Kara Stoll, Tiffany Cunningham and Leonard Stark denied the petition from Agricola La Primaveria, Bioparques de Occidente and Kaliroy Fresh, while Judge Jimmie Reyna did not participate (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2265, -2266, -2267).
Exporter SeAH Steel Corp. should not be allowed to intervene in an antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade since the court's ruling in the matter "would have no effect on its entries," the U.S. argued in a June 30 reply brief. SeAH only seeks to join the case, initially brought by Hyundai Steel Co., to potentially use the opinion as precedent in a later proceeding from a subsequent administrative review, DOJ said. This rationale does not clear the court's bar for establishing standing as an intervening party, the U.S. argued (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00138).
The Court of International Trade should not allow the Commerce Department to apply the highest dumping margin possible by picking only one mandatory respondent in a "weight-averaging situation," plaintiffs, led by Kisaan Die Tech Private, argued in a June 30 motion for judgment. The highest possible rate of the one respondent, determined using adverse facts available, is not reflective of the cooperating respondents' dumping margin, and thus not backed by evidence or law, the plaintiffs said (Kisaan Die Tech Private Ltd. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #21-00512).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate June 28 in a case on the tariff classification of tobacco wraps. In its May decision, the appellate court affirmed the Court of International Trade's ruling, which allowed into evidence the results of a particular customs test used to weigh the tobacco wraps. Importer New Image Global filed the case to fight for a lower excise tax on its tobacco wraps, which were classified as roll-your-own tobacco, subjecting them to the excise tax (New Image Global v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #19-2444).
The Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts dismissed charges of wire fraud against Yanzhi Chen, one of the defendants in a case involving semiconductor propriety information stolen from Analog Devices, Inc. (ADI). Chen and her husband, Haoyang Yu, along with their company Tricon MMIC, were charged with stealing hundreds of files belonging to ADI (U.S. v. Haoyang Yu, D. Mass. #19-10195).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shouldn't merely affirm an antidumping duty case concerning whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, AD petitioners, led by the American Cast Iron Pipe, said in a June 28 submission to the appellate court. Though the Federal Circuit said that Commerce can't make such an adjustment in the Hyundai Steel v. U.S. case, the present action has a "much different factual posture that merits consideration," so litigation should continue, the petitioners said (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1502).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on June 28 in a countervailing duty case over Indian exporter Uttam Galva's failure to report an affiliated cross-owned company. In a May opinion, the Federal Circuit said that the Commerce Department properly used adverse facts available, resulting in a 588.43% CVD rate, over the failure to report the affiliate in the CVD review on corrosion-resistant steel products from India. The court said the exporter didn't show that the affiliated company's financial statement could rebut the inclusion of 20 subsidy programs supposedly given to it, permitting the subsidies' inclusion in Uttam Galva's rate (Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2119).
The Court of International Trade in a June 28 order consolidated four antidumping duty cases concerning whether the Commerce Department can use one antidumping mandatory respondent's third-country sales to calculate another mandatory respondent's constructed value profit, selling expenses and constructed export price profit. The cases, brought by lead plaintiffs Hyundai Steel Co., AJU Besteel Co., Nexteel Co. and Husteel Co., all challenge the same final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from South Korea.