The Court of International Trade has personal jurisdiction over exporter Koehler Oberkirch in the government's customs penalty suit against the exporter, since it's a successor to the company that owes nearly $200 million in unpaid antidumping duties, the U.S. said. Responding to Koehler's motion to dismiss, the U.S. said Koehler doesn't question that its allegations establish that Koehler Oberkirch's "spin-off" to Koehler Paper was "done to escape paying" the duties (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch, CIT # 24-00014).
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Dec. 3 sustained the Commerce Department's benchmark picks for two subsidy programs in the 2016-17 review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum foil from China. Judge Timothy Reif said the agency adequately explained its selection of Trade Data Monitor data for use as the benchmark in assessing respondent Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co.'s receipt of aluminum plate, sheet and strip, and the selection of a 2010 Coldwell Banker Richard Ellis report using Thai data for the benchmark for Zhongji's land use rights program. On the land use rights program, Reif accepted Commerce's practice of using data contemporaneous with the receipt of the benefit and not with the review period.
The EU officially filed dispute settlement consultations at the World Trade Organization with China regarding its provisional antidumping duties on EU brandy imports after announcing the move last week (see 2411250014), the WTO announced. The move opens a 60-day window for the parties to negotiate an end to the conflict, after which a dispute settlement panel can be requested.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Exporter Chandan Steel Limited will appeal a decision from the Court of International Trade sustaining the 145.25% total adverse facts available rate set against the exporter in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on steel flanges from India (see 2312110043). The Commerce Department said Chandan repeatedly misreported its foreign sales information and the costs of production for those foreign sales. The court upheld the use of AFA to address these misrepresentations, noting that Chandan's responses also had additional deficiencies related to its reporting of gross unit price, quantity discounts, other discounts and duty refunds. The trade court then rejected Chandan Steel's motion for reconsideration of the decision (see 2410030013) (Chandan Steel Limited v. United States, CIT # 21-00540).
The U.S. said Nov. 22 that a vehicle parts importer “misrepresented multiple primary sources” when it argued that, as a petitioner for antidumping and countervailing duty orders on chassis from China, it hadn’t intended Chinese-origin components used in chassis from another country be included (see 2403070060) (Pitts Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00030).
The Court of International Trade granted an unopposed motion for partial final judgment Nov. 26, sustaining the antidumping duty rate calculated for exporter Kenda Rubber (China) Co. in the 2016-17 review of the AD order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. Judge Mark Barnett said the rate is "unchallenged and otherwise appears supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law" (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Nov. 29 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Importers Struxtur and Evolutions Flooring will appeal a Court of International Trade case on the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. The trade court sustained the Commerce Department's decision to weight average zero percent and adverse facts available antidumping duty rates to set the AD rate for the non-individually examined respondents (see 2409180044). CIT previously remanded Commerce's decision to use a simple average of the zero and AFA rates, instructing the agency to use a weighted average of the rates. The result was a 31.63% AD rate for the separate rate companies. Importers Wego International Floors, Galleher Corp. and Galleher LLC already filed their notice of appeal in the case (see 2411120038) (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 19-00144).