The Commerce Department withdrew exporter Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co. as a mandatory respondent in a countervailing duty administrative review on remand at the Court of International Trade after reviewing CBP data the agency used in its respondent selection process. After it was ordered by the trade court to look into very large entry volumes, Commerce accepted the explanation that these entries would take an unrealistic number of containers. Due to this, the agency dropped these entries from its respondent selection process and found that Jiangsu Guyu is no longer one of the two exporters that ship the most volume of the subject merchandise. The result, if sustained, would be a 6% decrease in the CVD rate for the non-selected companies (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03885).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade should dismiss a Section 592 penalty case against defendant Zhe "John" Liu since the statute of limitations has run out and the "action is untimely," Liu said in a Dec. 13 motion. The fraud case brought by the U.S. was not brought within five years from the date of the alleged violation because the defendant was not involved in the transaction at issue, as he was neither an owner, officer or director of GL Paper Distribution -- the company that committed the alleged fraud and a co-defendant in the action, the brief said. Liu also argued that the U.S. failed to state a claim against the defendant. As a result, Liu should be severed and dismissed from the case, the brief said (United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT #22-00215).
The World Trade Organization published the agenda for the Dec. 20 meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body. It includes U.S. status reports on the implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB on antidumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan; antidumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from South Korea; certain methodologies and their application to antidumping proceedings involving China; and Section 110(5) of the U.S. Copyright Act. A status report also is expected from Indonesia on measures related to the import of horticultural products, animals and animal products, and from the EU on measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 13 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The only way importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, could have properly challenged a CBP decision on its entries, according to the Court of International Trade, was to file a "[p]remature, overly broad, or indefinite" protest, SIS argued in a Dec. 6 supplemental brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. But these types of protests "do not constitute a proper basis for invoking CIT jurisdiction," the importer claimed, citing a prior Federal Circuit ruling (Acquisition 362 v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1161).
The Court of International Trade in a Dec.12 opinion dismissed a suit from importer MS Solar Investments challenging the Commerce Department's liquidation instructions following an antidumping duty review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said the case is based on an error affecting the final results of the review and not a mistake in the liquidation instructions. This means the case falls under Section 1581(c) and not Section 1581(i) -- the court's "residual" jurisidiction -- as claimed by the plaintiff.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 12 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 7 for leave to file a motion to dismiss in a case on an Enforce and Protect Act evasion finding, given that all the entries at issue have been liquidated. While Royal Brush does not oppose the motion for leave to file the dismiss bid, the appellant did tell the U.S. it will oppose the motion to dismiss itself. Prior to the appeal, the Court of International Trade had ruled CBP violated Royal Brush's due process rights by not providing adequate public summaries of confidential information (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, CIT #22-1226).