The Commerce Department erred by failing to reduce respondent Koehler Paper's constructed export price by interest accrued on unpaid antidumping duties, plaintiffs Domtar Corp. and Appvion argued in a Sept. 15 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Commerce failed to explain why this unpaid interest should be added to the cost of production rather than taken from the CEP given that the agency has the authority to make needed adjustments to cost items that are treated as a CEP deduction and not just to cost items that are components of COP, the brief said (Matra Americas v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00632).
A text-only order Sept. 15 of the three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade granted the motion for leave filed by three importers to enter into the record of the Section 301 litigation their previously unexpected amicus brief in the Section 301 litigation (see 2209140054). Verifone, Drone Nerds and Specialized Bicycle Components argued in the brief for the lists 3 and 4A tariffs to be vacated for Administrative Procedure Act violations at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative that remain uncured after the agency filed its Aug. 1 remand determination. The three importers are “interested parties” to the litigation, as they are “individual claimants” among the thousands of Section 301 lawsuits filed, and because they “do business in and with China,” their motion said (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).
A recent Court of International decision in a countervailing duty case is relevant to a case brought by The Mosaic Co. over the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation into phosphate fertilizers from Mexico, CVD respondent OCP told the Court of International Trade. The decision in the past case, also brought by Mosaic, said Commerce reasonably excluded freight, import duties and value-added tax from the tier-three benchmark price for phosphate rock (see 2209020061) (The Mosaic Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #21-00116).
The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's determination that the South Korean government's provision of port usage rights constitutes a countervailable benefit, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 15 reply brief. Responding to respondent Hyundai Steel, Commerce said, contrary to what the company says, there is no evidence to show that the period of port usage for which Hyundai does not pay fees was specifically calculated to match the costs incurred by Hyundai for building the port (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT #21-00304).
Automated shade machines are neither "curtains" nor " builders' wares" but are complex machines classifiable in the tariff schedule as appliances with individual functions, importer Lutron said in a Sept. 14 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Lutron Electronics v. U.S., CIT #22-00264).
The omission of certain documents related to service-related revenues (SRRs) in an antidumping review does not warrant the use of total adverse facts available, respondent Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems argued in a Sept. 15 brief at the Court of International Trade. Nor does the respondent's failure to report a sale of a large power transformer that the Commerce Department believed was made in South Korea, Hyundai said in vying for partial AFA (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems v. U.S., CIT #20-00108).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Katana Racing Could Not Revoke of Statute of Limitations, US Tells CAFC in Unpaid Duty Case
The Court of International Trade was wrong to dismiss the government's case against importer Katana Racing seeking to collect over $5.7 million in unpaid duties due to an expired statute of limitations, the U.S. argued in its Sept. 13 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government's suit was in fact timely filed since Katana could not revoke its waiver of the statute of limitations, the brief said. The U.S. said no law backs the finding that such a waiver could be revoked and stop the government from filing suit for unpaid duties, and that the trade court's ruling "leads to absurd results" (U.S. v. Katana Racing, Fed. Cir. #22-1832).
The Commerce Department properly found that a particular EU subsidy to Spanish olive growers was de facto specific, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 14 opinion. After previously remanding the case twice, Judge Gary Katzmann this time bought Commerce's rationale for its de facto specificity finding, along with the agency's conclusion that demand for ripe olives -- the subject merchandise -- was substantially dependent on the demand for certain raw olive varietals.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: