Size-reduction machinery should be classified as duty-free machines for "crushing, grinding, or screening" rather than as "other electromechanical" machines, dutiable at 2.5%, importer Vecoplan said in a Nov. 14 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Vecoplan v. United States # 20-00126).
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 on Nov. 14 in a case concerning the 10th administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from China. In the opinion, the appellate court ruled that the Commerce Department properly hit antidumping duty respondent Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial with total adverse facts available for its failure to report all of its factors of production data on a control number (CONNUM)-specific basis (see 2209230034). The court said that the CONNUM-specific reporting requirement is an interpretive rule and not a legislative one requiring a notice-and-comment period, and that Pioneer failed to cooperate to the best of its ability by not maintaining adequate records and not developing a proper reporting methodology (Xi'an Metals & Minerals Import & Export Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2205 -2227).
The Supreme Court gave appellants, in a broad challenge to President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, an extension to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. In the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that there is no requirement in the statute to find an imminent threat to the domestic industry before imposing Section 232 duties and that the threat determination is not reviewable under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard since the secretary's action "is only reviewable for compliance with the statute" (see 2206090047). The appellate court then denied a petition to rehear the challenge (see 2208190049). The appellants, led by USP Holdings, have through Dec. 16 to file the petition (USP Holdings v. United States, #21-1726).
US Steel Tells CIT About 'Developments' in CAFC Case Over Intervention in Section 232 Exclusion Case
U.S. Steel Corp., defendant-intervenor in a case over a denied Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion request, filed a notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 14. The notice pointed to "developments" in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, California Steel Industries v. U.S., in which the appellate court denied U.S. Steel the right to intervene in a different challenge to Section 232 exclusion request denials. Those "developments" reference U.S. Steel Corp.'s motion for rehearing (see 2210250056), in which it argued that the majority's ruling in the opinion cannot be squared with key Supreme Court precedent. The defendant-intervenor alerted the trade court to these developments "as they may result in a change to Federal Circuit law regarding the rights of parties to intervene in actions before the Court" (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT #22-00243).
The Commerce Department admitted that it was "improper" to inflate a Mexican labor wage rate using Brazilian consumer price index (CPI) data in an antidumping duty investigation. Submitting its remand results on Nov. 14 to the Court of International Trade, Commerce said it reopened the record and added Mexican wage rate data. The agency also found on remand that exporter Guangzhou Ulix Industrial & Trading Co. met the burden for achieving separate rate status. The result of the remand is a zero percent dumping margin for respondents Ningbo Master International Trade Co., Guangzhou Jingye Machinery Co. and now Ulix (New American Keg v. United States, CIT #20-00008).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiffs in a countervailing duty case will appeal a September Court of International Trade decision which found that the Commerce Department properly found that a particular EU subsidy to Spanish olive growers was de facto specific. According to the notice of appeal, plaintiffs Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa, Agro Sevilla Aceitunas S. Coop. and Angel Camacho Alimentacion will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the decision, the trade court also upheld Commerce's finding that demand for ripe olives -- the subject merchandise in the CVD investigation -- was substantially dependent on the demand for certain raw olive varietals -- the good that received the subsidies (see 2209140052) (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. United States, CIT #18-00195).
Law firm Neville Peterson has replaced Clark Hill as counsel for importer Meyer Corp. in 10 cases at the Court of International Trade, according to a notice of substitution of attorney at the Court of International Trade. Meyer filed the case over the use of first sale treatment in which CIT questioned whether goods from non-market economies could qualify for first sale valuation. This ruling was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled that CBP had no basis to consider a country's non-market economy status when finding whether to grant first sale treatment to a transaction (see 2208110060). This case returned to the trade court, where it serves as a test case for many other proceedings brought by Meyer -- 10 of which Neville Peterson has taken over as counsel for Clark Hill (Meyer Corp. v. United States , CIT #14-00277, 15-00018, 15-00019, 15-00092, 15-00191, 15-00332, 16-00112, 16-00271, 17-00186, 20-03835).
The Court of International Trade in a Nov 10 order dismissed a customs case from Incipio Technologies concerning the classification of its wristlets and media player covers. CBP classified the merchandise under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 4202.22.1500, dutiable at 16%, and 3926.10.0000, dutiable at 5.3%. Incipio says it should have instead been classified under subheadings 4202.32.1000, dutiable at 4.6% + 12.1 cents per kilogram, and 8473.30.5100, free of duty, or 8522.90.7580 dutiable at 2% (Incipio Technologies v. U.S., CIT #17-00188).