DOJ is looking to collect over $10 million in unpaid duties and penalties from Florida businessman Zhe "John" Liu and one of his companies, AB MA Distribution, alleging Liu and AB MA transshipped steel wire hangers through India and Thailand to avoid the payment of antidumping and other duties on steel wire hangers from China, according to a June 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade (U.S. v. Zhe "John" Liu and AB MA Distribution Corporation, CIT # 23-00116).
The Court of International Trade, in a pair of opinions authored by Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, upheld parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's countervailing duty review on oil country tubular goods from South Korea, and sustained Commerce's remand results in a suit on the antidumping duty review of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China.
The Court of International Trade correctly dismissed appellant Glob Energy's claims for lack of jurisdiction in an Enforce and Protect Act case in which CBP said the company and others were transshipping Chinese xanthan gum through India to avoid antidumping duties, the U.S. said in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CBP liquidated Glob's entries and the company did not appeal the liquidations "through channels that would permit the trial court to exercise jurisdiction over those entries," and as a result, the liquidations become final and unreviewable, the brief said (All One God Faith v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 8 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate granting exporter Deacero S.A.P.I.'s move to dismiss its appeal challenging the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on rebar products from Mexico. Both the U.S. and petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition consented to the motion. Deacero launched the suit to challenge the Commerce Department's treatment of Section 232 duties paid by Deacero as U.S. import duties, deducting them from the company's U.S. price in the dumping calculation (Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1486).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should deny Oman Fasteners' bid to dismiss Mid Continent's appeal of a Court of International Trade opinion which consolidated a motion for an injunction on antidumping duty cash deposits with a motion for judgment, saying the motion to dismiss is a “revisionist version of the record and applicable statutes, regulations, and judicial precedent” and isn't accurate, Mid Continent said in a reply brief June 6 (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
The Court of International Trade on June 7 upheld the Commerce Department's classification of the surrogate values for aluminum ash byproduct and rolling oil inputs in the first antidumping duty administrative review on aluminum foil from China, as well as the agency's decision to use Maersk data to calculate surrogate freight costs and its refusal to grant respondent Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. a double remedies adjustment for input subsidies the respondent said were countervailable.
Bret Vallacher, a former trial attorney at DOJ, moved to the Washington, D.C., office of Massey & Gail in May, Vallacher confirmed with Trade Law Daily. Vallacher's practice will center on a wide range of issues including "contract, employment, securities, antitrust, theft of trade secrets, trademark, deceptive trade practices, false advertising, fraud, defamation, election law, and constitutional takings," the firm said. The attorney, who helped litigate AD/CVD and customs cases at DOJ, said that the case that brought him to join Massey & Gail is the suit by cancer victims against Johnson & Johnson claiming that the company's talcum-based baby powder caused ovarian cancer. Vallacher told TLD he is working on the case.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 7 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Commerce Department's decision to use Afghanistan as a comparison market for India in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined paper products from India was flawed and resulted in skewed margins for respondent Cellpage and the non-selected respondents, a group of U.S. manufacturers said in a June 5 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Prices in Afghanistan were not representative and should not have been the basis for normal value, Association of American School Paper Suppliers (AASPS) argued as it asked the court to remand the results back to Commerce (Association of American School Paper Suppliers v. U.S., CIT # 23-00102).