The Court of International Trade should deny a motion by the Government that would force importer Second Nature to file a complaint in a case concerning the proper classification of imported botanical products, according to a July 20 motion by Second Nature (Second Nature Designs Ltd. v. United States, CIT #17-00131).
The Commerce Department's refusal to reopen the record after an antidumping review was complete to correct ministerial errors "was a reasonable exercise of its discretion to preserve the finality of its decision," AD petitioner GEO Specialty Chemicals argued in a July 21 brief at the Court of International Trade. GEO said that Commerce's discretion to not amend the final results is "broad," and that the error was not discovered until "well after" the five-day window after the release of the final calculations to file ministerial errors (Nagase & Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's own precedent means it should have relied on the U.S. dollar price of home market sales in an antidumping duty case instead of foreign currentcy amounts to avoid large exchange rate fluctuations, plaintiff Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi argued in a July 18 reply brief. Filing its arguments at the Court of International Trade, Habas said that the "evidentiary record" shows Commerce should not have valued Habas's sales using the Turkish lira (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. United States, CIT #21-00527).
CBP improperly denied of protests of antidumping duties on wire rods from Korea due to a missed deadline even though the protests were filed within 180 days of liquidation and liquidation was suspended when CBP says the deadline for protests began to run, Kiswire said in a July 19 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Kiswire Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00181).
The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion redenominated the U.S.'s counterclaim in a customs case brought by importer Cyber Power Systems as a defense, ruling that the U.S. does not have the statutory authority to make the counterclaim. With the ruling, Judge Claire Kelly denied Cyber Power's motion to dismiss the counterclaim as moot. Kelly ruled that none of the sections in the U.S. code cited by the U.S. give a basis for the counterclaim, which sought to reclassify imported cables.
The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion redenominated the U.S.'s counterclaim in a customs case brought by importer Cyber Power Systems as a defense, ruling that the U.S. does not have the statutory authority to make the counterclaim. With the ruling, Judge Claire Kelly denied Cyber Power's motion to dismiss the counterclaim as moot. Kelly ruled that none of the sections in the U.S. code cited by the U.S. give a basis for the counterclaim, which sought to reclassify imported cables.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A recent Court of International Trade opinion finding that the Commerce Department appropriately rejected untimely filed questionnaire responses and extension requests is relevant for antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube Co.'s case, the petitioner said in a July 19 notice of supplemental authority (Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Ind. v. United States, CIT #21-00587). In the recent decision in the Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S. case, the court said Commerce properly rejected the hour and 41 minutes-late submissions (see 2207150035). The plaintiffs said that technical difficulties and COVID-19 issues resulted in the late filings, but the court said Commerce did not abuse its discretion in denying the submissions since the plaintiffs' "experienced counsel" should have requested an extension earlier.
A case involving allegedly defective plywood should be dismissed from consideration at the Court of International Trade because the importer has failed to show evidence of actual defect or specific value lost, the government said in a July 18 cross-motion for summary judgement (Bral Corporation v. United States, CIT # 20-00154).