The Commerce Department improperly relied on the Cohen's d statistical test when deciding to use an "average-to-transaction" as opposed to an "average-to-average" comparison of sales to calculate exporter HiSteel's dumping margin, HiSteel argued in a June 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce used the test without establishing the conditions needed to make the test work as pointed out in a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case, the exporter said (HiSteel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00142).
The Court of International Trade in a June 7 order granted the U.S.'s bid for a stay in an Enforce and Protect Act case, halting proceedings until the Commerce Department issues its final determination in the relevant covered merchandise referral matter. The case concerns Fedmet Resources' challenge of a 2020 EAPA determination, in which CBP found that Fedmet had evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on magnesia alumina carbon (MAC) bricks from China. On April 27, CBP requested a stay to seek a covered merchandise referral from Commerce because it says that it's unable to determine whether the bricks it tested are covered merchandise (see 2204270072) (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT #21-00248).
Attorneys for RH Peterson asked the Court of International Trade to set aside a dismissal entered by the court clerk on June 3, which cited "lack of prosecution" as a reason for dismissal following a missed filing deadline by the importer. RH Peterson's attorneys said that they believed the filing deadline to avoid the dismissal was at the end of June, according to a June 6 motion to reinstate the case (RH Peterson Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00099).
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 7 order granted Porsche Motorsports North America's motion to voluntarily dismiss its case seeking duty-free treatment of auto parts temporarily exported then reimported. The Court of International Trade previously denied Porsche this treatment, ruling that auto parts exported to Canada for use at auto races then re-imported don't qualify for duty-free treatment under a U.S. goods returned tariff provision for "tools of the trade" (see 2201030038). The trade court found that the auto parts and tools were exported to generate sales to race teams rather than for a professional purpose, as required under subheading 9801.00.8500.
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 in three cases challenging an antidumping duty investigation's final determination subject to a suspension agreement. In the opinions, the appellate court held that the plaintiff-appellants have the right to judicially challenge the final determination even if they're subject to a suspension agreement, though it did dismiss many of the claims made in the actual actions (Red Sun Farms v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2230) (Confederacion de Asociaciones Agricolas del Estado de Sinaloa v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2232) (Jem D International (Michigan) Inc. USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1292).
Magnesia alumina carbon (MAC) brick exporter Fedmet Resources' move to oppose the U.S. stay motion in an Enforce and Protect Act case only delays resolution, DOJ argued in a June 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Fedmet opposes the stay and seeks the filing of a voluntary remand in a window that the U.S. says is impossible since it needs a covered merchandise referral determination from the Commerce Department -- the matter at the heart of the contested stay motion (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT #21-00248).
Imported carbon steel tubing lined with epoxy coating are insulated for tariff schedule purposes, and should be classified under heading 8547 as insulating fittings for electrical machines, appliances or equipment, importer Shamrock Building Materials said in a motion for summary judgment filed June 6 at the Court of International Trade (Shamrock Building Materials, Inc. v. United States, CIT # 20-00074).
Legalization at the state level allows importer Keirton USA to “manufacture, possess, or distribute” marijuana but doesn't constitute a specific authorization to go against the "uniform Federal ban" on drug paraphernalia imports, DOJ said in a June 6 brief at the Court of International Trade (Keirton USA v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT #21-00452).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: