The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 6 order denied defendant-intervenor Endura Products' motion for a stay of proceedings in an Enforce and Protect Act case brought by Columbia Aluminum Products, pending the resolution of a scope proceeding at the trade court. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that the stay motion failed to show that it would serve the twin objectives of "fairness to the litigants and judicial economy."
A protest of a CBP decision must be filed within 180 days of liquidation and not the date the Commerce Department issues antidumping and countervailing duty instructions to CBP or the date CBP denies an importer's refund request, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in a Feb. 6 opinion. Upholding a Court of International Trade decision, judges Timothy Dyk, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes dismissed a case from importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, that challenges a CBP assessment of countervailing duties, on the grounds that the company failed to file a protest.
The Commerce Department published notices in the Federal Register Feb. 6 on the following AD/CV duty proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CV duty rates, scope, affected firms or effective dates will be detailed in another ITT article):
Antidumping duty respondent Octal moved to dismiss its challenge of the Commerce Department's decision to find that the company was affiliated with one of its U.S. customers, among other things. On Feb. 1, Commerce released its final determination in the underlying AD investigation terminating the order, leading Octal to petition to dismiss the case (Octal v. U.S., CIT # 20-03697).
The Commerce Department made multiple errors in assigning duty rates in an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China, plaintiff intervenor JA Solar argued in its Jan. 30 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Risen Energy Co., et al. v. United States, CIT # 22-00231).
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 3 order granted the Commerce Department's voluntary remand request to reconsider its decision to apply a cost-based particular market situation adjustment when calculating antidumping duty respondent Garg Tube Export's weighted-average dumping margin. The respondent consented to the motion in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's 2021 decision in Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., which found Commerce can't make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test (Garg Tube Export v. United States, CIT # 21-00169).
The Commerce Department defended its final results in an antidumping duty review in a Feb. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade, arguing, among other things, that Commerce did not illegally change its methodology when it decided to use third-country control number (CONNUM) costs. The agency also claimed that plaintiff Navneet Education misread Commerce's decision not to use third-party CONNUMs in a review on ripe olives from Spain when it argued that the ripe olives case affirmed agency practice (Navneet Education v. United States, CIT # 22-00132).
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 6 order denied defendant-intervenor Endura Products' motion for a stay of proceedings in an Enforce and Protect Act case brought by Columbia Aluminum pending Endura's impending appeal of a separate CIT decision over a scope ruling involving Columbia's imports. In that decision, the court upheld the exclusion of the plaintiff's door thresholds from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu said the stay motion failed to show it would serve the twin objectives of "fairness to the litigants and judicial economy."
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 6 dismissed importer Acquisition 362's challenge of CBP's countervailing duty assessments, ruling it did not have jurisdiction because the importer failed to file a protest. Acquisition 362, which does business as Strategic Import Supply, had argued it didn't need to file the protest because there was nothing to protest within 180 days of the tire imports at issue being liquidated. Judges Timothy Dyk, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes ruled a protest was needed nonetheless, holding the 180-day deadline to file a protest challenging a CBP decision runs from the date of liquidation and not from the date of Commerce's antidumping and countervailing duty instructions.
The Commerce Department published notices in the Federal Register Feb. 3 on the following AD/CV duty proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CV duty rates, scope, affected firms or effective dates will be detailed in another ITT article):