Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Steel importer Norca Industrial Company filed a challenge to an affirmative Enforce and Protect Act determination, claiming that CBP did not have a legal basis to initiate the investigation and violated its due process rights. In an April 27 complaint in the Court of International Trade, Norca made six claims against its EAPA investigation, including on the constitutionality of the process and whether CBP unfairly made adverse inferences against the company to determine that evasion took place (Norca Industrial Company LLC v. U.S., CIT # 21-00192).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices April 27 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
The Commerce Department on April 27 issued antidumping duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from Bahrain (A-525-001), Brazil (A-351-854), Croatia (A-891-001), Egypt (A-729-803), Germany (A-428-849), India (A-533-895), Indonesia (A-560-835), Italy (A-475-842), Oman (A-523-814), Romania (A-485-809), Serbia (A-801-001), Slovenia (A-856-001), South Africa (A-791-825), Spain (A-469-820), Taiwan (A-583-867) and Turkey (A-489-839), and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from Bahrain (C-525-002), India (C-533-896) and Turkey (C-489-840). The International Trade Commission published its final injury determination April 26.
Target Corporation launched a case in the Court of International Trade challenging one of the court's own decisions to order the reliquidation of metal top ironing tables at a higher antidumping duty rate. In an April 23 complaint, Target claimed that CIT's order, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision to uphold the order, to reliquidate the ironing tables at a higher 72.29% antidumping duty rate is illegal since the order came 90 days after the goods were liquidated by CBP.
CBP can still collect unpaid antidumping duties on a customs bond despite waiting nearly eight years after the relevant entries liquidated before demanding payment, the Justice Department said in a brief filed April 23. Aegis Security Insurance Co., which acted as surety on 10 entries of fresh garlic from China that was deemed liquidated 2006, says the statute of limitations had expired on the bond by the time CBP billed Aegis for the full continuous bond amount, $50,000, in 2014. “Because a customs bond is a contract, the [Federal Circuit] has held that a cause of action to enforce its obligations accrues when the terms of the bond are breached,” DOJ said. “In this case, the terms of the bond at issue were not breached by Aegis until CBP made a demand for payment against Aegis and Aegis failed to pay the duties within the time required by law.”
James Holbein, of counsel at Braumiller Law Group, was appointed to the roster of people available to serve on the USMCA Chapter 10 panels, the firm announced in an April 20 news release. The Chapter 10 panels are established at the request of industry seeking alternative courts to adjudicate antidumping and countervailing duty matters.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission April 23 released the following notices, set for Federal Register publication April 26, on AD/CV duty proceedings:
The Department of Homeland Security recently posted CBP reports on antidumping and countervailing duty enforcement actions for fiscal years 2019 and 2018. DHS posted both reports April 15, though the FY 2019 report is dated Nov. 13, 2020, and the FY 2018 report is dated Dec. 12, 2019.
The Commerce Department on April 23 released an antidumping duty order on seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipe from the Czech Republic (A-851-804). AD duty rates were unchanged from Commerce’s final determinations, ranging from 51.07% to 51.7%. The 51.7% rate for both mandatory respondents was based on adverse facts available because of the mandatory respondents’ lack of participation, and the all-others rate based on a simple average of the dumping margins alleged in the petition. The order details a short three-day gap period, with the provisional measures period running four months from the Dec. 21 AD duty preliminary determination (unextended to six months). The International Trade Commission also published its final injury determination April 23.