A U.S. motion to dismiss an importer's challenge of the way CBP handled liquidation after a prior disclosure amounts to a “mischaracterization” of its complaint, and the Court of International Trade also had jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the Customs Courts Act of 1980, the importer said (Larson-Juhl US v. U.S., CIT # 23-00032).
Exporter Tau-Ken Temir (TKT) and Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration argued in a Feb. 12 reply brief that the Commerce Department doesn't have "essentially total discretion to decide deadlines and acceptance of filings." Responding to claims from the U.S. at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, TKT and the Kazakh ministry said the government didn't claim that any prejudice would have resulted from granting TKT's one-day extension request, which would have absolved the company from missing a filing deadline in a countervailing duty proceeding by 90 minutes (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
In Feb. 13 remand comments filed in the Court of International Trade, a domestic petitioner said that CIT erred in its ruling remanding a Moroccan phosphate fertilizer exporter’s CVD determination and that this forced the Commerce Department to incorrectly recalculate the exporter’s costs (The Mosaic Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00116).
CBP on Feb. 15 reversed its finding that importer Columbia Aluminum Products evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT # 19-00185).
The U.S. opened a customs penalty lawsuit against California importer Rago Tires, alleging that the company avoided antidumping and countervailing duty orders on truck and bus tires from China. The government is looking to collect $56,435.48 from Rago, quadruple the amount of duties the company allegedly failed to pay (U.S. v. Rago Tires, CIT # 24-00043).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 15 said companies that submit requests for administrative review in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings can intervene as a matter of right at the Court of International Trade.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Feb. 15 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Monopiles, the foundations of large offshore structures such as wind towers, are not subject to AD/CVD orders on wind towers from Spain, the Commerce Department said in a Feb. 6 scope ruling.
Certain types of electrical conduit fittings imported from China are not subject to an antidumping duty order on certain malleable iron pipe fittings from that country, the Commerce Department said in a Feb. 8 scope ruling.
The Commerce Department said in a new scope ruling Feb. 9 that some of exporter Asia Wheel’s 22.5 to 24.5 inch diameter steel wheels -- those with rims and discs made in Thailand or a third country out of inputs from China -- are not covered by AD/CVD orders on steel wheels from China.