The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices April 3 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Liquidation of imported picture frame moldings should have been suspended pending antidumping and countervailing duty administrative reviews, importer Larson-Juhl told the Court of International Trade in a March 30 complaint. The complaint contests CBP's denial of Larson-Juhl's protests concerning the liquidation and assessment of duties on nine entries subject to AD and CVD orders on wood mouldings and millwork products from China (Larson-Juhl US v. United States., CIT # 23-00032).
The statute of limitations in customs penalties runs from the date of entry, not from the date that the importer directed the violation to be committed, the Court of International Trade said in a March 31 decision that denied a motion to dismiss a fraud case against Florida businessman Zhe "John" Liu (U.S. v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).
As filing day approaches, the calendar is marked with a big figurative red X, multiple alerts have been set and hours have been spent combing through documents to make sure the Commerce Department’s ACCESS system accepts the submission. But sometimes, despite all the preparation, something derails the process and the documents are turned in late. Suddenly, a routine part of the job has morphed into every lawyer’s nightmare -- a missed deadline.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices March 31 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on March 30 in a case wherein it ruled a protest of a CBP decision must be filed within 180 days of liquidation, rather than the date the Commerce Department issues antidumping and countervailing duty instructions to CBP or the date CBP denies an importer's refund request. In the decision, the appellate court upheld the Court of International Trade opinion dismissing the case on the grounds that Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, failed to file a protest in time (see 2302060029) (Acquisition 362 v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1161).
The Commerce Department didn't adequately address questions raised by countervailing duty respondent Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. over the agency's use of certain benchmark information for the land program, the Court of International Trade ruled in a March 21 opinion made public March 29. Upholding parts and sending back parts of the 2016-17 administrative review of the CVD order on aluminum foil from China, Judge Timothy Reif said Commerce must reconsider its analysis of the contemporaneity of data it used for the land program benchmark.
CBP said that all wooden bedroom furniture imported by Aspects Furniture International was covered merchandise subject to an Enforce and Protect Act investigation despite a scope ruling from the Commerce Department finding that only two of six types of Aspects' furniture was covered merchandise. In remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade on March 27, CBP said the finding was justified due to adverse inferences levied against the importer (Aspects Furniture International v. U.S., CIT # 20-03824).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices March 30 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The consent of a foreign manufacturer does not overcome the Privacy Act of 1974's ban on disclosure of the confidential Enforce and Protect Act record, the U.S. said in response to importer Richmond International Forest Products' motion to compel. Richmond's motion does not qualify for disclosure since the company is requesting the entire confidential EAPA record, which has data submitted by parties other than the consenting foreign manufacturer, LB Wood, the government said (Richmond International Forest Products Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00318).