Three Chinese exporters -- Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co., Shandong Dongyue Chemical Co. and Huantai Dongyue International Trade Co. -- filed a complaint on May 4 at the Court of International Trade to contest the antidumping duty investigation on pentafluoroethane (R-125) from China. The nine-count complaint airs out the exporters' issues with alleged ministerial errors committed in the investigation that led to a large 277.95% dumping margin for the exporters (Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00103).
The Court of International Trade didn't and couldn't take away the Commerce Department's statutory authority to use facts available over the content of countervailing duty review respondent Celik Halat's questionnaire response once the agency accepted it, three defendant-intervenors argued in a May 5 reply brief. Celik Halat's responses were deficient over its reported use of the General Investment Incentive Scheme (GIIS) Customs Duty Exemption Program, warranting partial adverse facts available, the brief said (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi v. U.S., CIT #21-00050).
The U.S. urged the Court of International Trade to sustain the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case accepting minutes-late submissions, given that no party filed comments opposing the remand. Submitting its May 5 comments at CIT, DOJ said Commerce fully followed court instructions in accepting the late submissions and reverting to partial adverse facts available rather than full AFA (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi v. U.S., CIT #21-00045).
Judge Mark Barnett, chief judge at the Court of International Trade, reassigned 14 customs cases from Judge Thomas Aquilino to Judge Timothy Stanceu, in a May 5 order. The cases were brought by importer Mast Industries and challenge the classification of ladies' knitted tops with a built-in shelf bra (see 2205020058) (Mast Industries v. United States, CIT #01-00859, #02-00198, #02-00199, #02-00200, #03-00428, #03-00714, #03-00879, #04-00274, #05-00025, #07-00112, #07-00159, #10-00053, #10-00227, #11-00024).
The Court of International Trade should disregard the government's motion to dismiss steel importer Rimco's challenge to the antidumping and countervailing duties it paid, Rimco argued in a May 4 reply brief. Since the importer's case is really a constitutional challenge over excessive fines, Rimco argued that it properly filed its action as a response to CBP's assessment of the AD/CVD rather than the Commerce Department's calculations of the duties (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00537).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a May 4 confidential order sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case over the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy. In a letter on the opinion, Judge Richard Eaton said that he hopes to release the public version "in the near future" and that litigants should submit their reviews of the opinion to check for business confidential information by May 11. In the case, Commerce stuck by its decision to hit affiliated antidumping respondents Ghigi 1870 and Pasta Zara with an adverse inference over their U.S. payment dates (see 2202280052). However, the agency dropped the adverse inference on the U.S. sales for which Commerce verified the correct date. The result is a weighted-average dumping margin of 91.74% for Ghigi/Zara (Ghigi 1870 S.P.A. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-00023).
8th Amendment AD/CVD Challenge Should Be Tossed for Lack of Jurisdiction, Proposed Intervenor Argues
The Court of International Trade should toss steel importer Rimco's challenge to the antidumping and countervailing duties it paid for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, proposed defendant-intervenor Accuride argued in a May 4 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The case should be dismissed because CIT isn't the proper jurisdiction for the importer's challenge to the Commerce Department's decisions, the company argued (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00537).
The International Trade Commission erred when it found that revocation of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from Oman would lead to a continuation or recurrence of injury to the domestic PET resin industry within a foreseeable time, Omani exporter OCTAL argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade May 2, OCTAL argued that the ITC violated the law when it either ignored or failed to adequately address contrary evidence relating to whether the revocation of the orders would lead to injury to the U.S. industry (OCTAL Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00135).
The Court of International in a May 2 order granted importer DSM Nutritional Products' consent motion to set up a test case in its customs spat over how to classify beta-carotene products. The motion places six other cases under one action -- five of which were brought by DSM and the other by American International Chemical. All the cases concern the tariff classification of beta-carotene products that CBP placed under HTS subheading 2106.90.99, which provides for "food preparations not elsewhere specific or included," dutiable at 6.4%. The importers argue for the products to be classified under subheading 2936.90.01, which provides for "provitamins," free of duty (DSM Nutritional Products v. United States, CIT #17-00136).