Section 232 national security duties are not "ordinary customs duties" and shouldn't be deducted from an antidumping duty respondent's export price and constructed export price, exporter Borusan Mannesmann said in a Feb. 25 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Instead, Section 232 duties should be found to be "special duties" because they were imposed by a specific congressional delegation of authority to the president, the brief said (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #22-00057).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted American steel giant U.S. Steel's request to appear as an amicus in a key case on whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in antidumping proceedings (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1748). In the case, brought by Hyundai Steel Company, the Federal Circuit found that no such adjustment was permitted by the statute, cementing a long string of Court of International Trade rulings saying the same thing (see 2112100039). The petitioner of the relevant AD order, Welspun, filed for a full court rehearing, prompting U.S. Steel's amicus bid (see 2202250034).
The government's right to collect on a bond against a surety doesn't accrue until the surety breaches the bond, the Department of Justice said in a Feb. 28 motion for judgment in a case seeking to collect on a bond that covers imports entered during 2002-2006. Since the terms of the bond say that the surety must pay "as demanded by CBP," the statute of limitations on which to file suit to collect payment runs from when CBP demands payment, the brief said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).
The Commerce Department didn't "consider the plain language of the scope" when it found a type of aluminum sheet imported from Turkey by AA Metals to be covered by the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China, the importer said in a Feb. 22 complaint challenging a scope ruling issued by Commerce in response to a CBP covered merchandise referral in an AD/CVD evasion investigation (AA Metals v. United States, CIT #22-00051).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Versace USA says CBP overcharged it customs duties by using the wrong appraisal method for merchandise moved between Versace's Canadian and U.S. warehouses, according to a complaint it filed Feb. 25. Versace says CBP used the transaction value method based on prices on a pro forma invoice, but those prices "were the suggested Canadian retail sales prices of the merchandise," and "Versace USA did not pay the prices stated on the pro forma invoice." CBP should have relied on the value of identical or similar merchandise, Versace said. CBP denied Versace's protest in 2017 (Versace USA Inc. v. U.S., CIT #18-00034).
A pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade, one filed by Calgon Carbon and the other by Carbon Activated Tianjin, argue that the Commerce Department picked the wrong surrogate data in a recent administrative review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China (Calgon Carbon Corporation v. U.S., CIT #22-00025) (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00017).
South Korean manufacturer Hyundai Steel Co. launched a challenge at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea. In the review, Commerce said that Hyundai received a countervailable benefit through the issuance of carbon emissions permits for less than adequate remuneration (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT #22-00029).
CBP wrongly classified animal antibiotic chlortetracycline concentrate feed grade powder (CTC concentrate), resulting in the imposition of Section 301 China tariffs on the imports, Zoetis Services said in a Feb. 24 complaint at the Court of International Trade. While CBP classified the powder as a feed preparation, Zeotis says it should have classified it has a medicament (Zoetis Services LLC v. U.S., CIT #22-00056).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: