Remand redeterminations recently submitted by the Commerce Department in two related cases are not final agency decisions that can be sustained by the Court of International Trade, and doing so would circumvent the trade court’s judicial review process, CIT said in a pair of Aug. 10 decisions rejecting the remand results in a case involving a scope ruling on door thresholds. Filed in response to the second CIT remands in cases involving two respective scope rulings that found the door thresholds from Columbia and Worldwide Door subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, the remand redeterminations, filed under protest, only promise a future “revised scope ruling” if the trade court sustains. “Because it is not the actual scope ruling or determination Commerce plans to issue, it would not be self-effectuating should the court sustain it, and the agency decision that would follow if it were sustained would escape direct judicial review,” CIT said in the two nearly identical opinions.
Plaintiffs in three similar cases challenging CBP’s denial of delinquency interest on collected antidumping and countervailing duties under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to three notices of appeal filed Aug. 5. The Court of International Trade ruled in June that CBP properly denied the payments, relying on CBP’s interpretation of how to administer CDSOA and define how interest is earned on AD/CVD given ambiguities in the statute pertaining to delinquency interest (see 2206160074). Among the appellants are Monterey Mushrooms, Hilex Poly and American Drew.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 1-7:
The Court of International Trade will close out a controversial case involving allegations of antidumping and countervailing duty evasion by a Dominican exporter in that Dominican exporter’s favor, granting on Aug. 8 a motion to enter judgment sustaining CBP’s reversal of an evasion finding for Kingtom Aluminio in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation. Kingtom, several importers and the U.S. government had filed a joint motion requesting CBP’s remand results be sustained (see 2206230037).
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative heard from business groups, businesses that offer traceability solutions and civil society groups, 45 in all, on how to shape a forced labor strategy -- but their views diverged strongly on what the approach should be.
Camera housings are properly classified as camera "parts" rather than "camera cases," argued GoPro at the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 5 motion for summary judgment (GoPro v. U.S., CIT #20-00176).
The Court of International Trade will close out a controversial case involving allegations of antidumping and countervailing duty evasion by a Dominican exporter in the exporter’s favor, granting on Aug. 8 a motion to enter judgment sustaining CBP’s reversal of an evasion finding for Kingtom Aluminio in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation. Kingtom, several importers and the U.S. government had filed a joint motion requesting CBP’s remand results be sustained.
CBP affirmed a February determination that found substantial evidence of evasion of countervailing duties and antidumping duties on wooden cabinets from China by two importers, after a review of the case, according to a recently released notice.
CBP affirmed a February determination that found substantial evidence of evasion of countervailing duties and antidumping duties on wooden cabinets from China by two importers, after a review of the case, according to a recently released notice.
Importer Compart Systems dismissed its customs dispute in an Aug. 4 motion at the Court of International Trade. The company filed the case to contest the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification of its parts and accessories for the manufacture of semiconductors. The parts liquidated under subheading 8481.10.0090, dutiable at 2%, but the company vied for classification under subheading 8486.90.0000, free of duty. Compart Systems' notice of dismissal did not provide a reason for the case being tossed, and counsel for the importer did not reply to request for comment (Compart Systems v. U.S., CIT #21-00558).