Even if the Commerce Department finds that solar panels from Southeast Asia are circumventing antidumping and countervailing duty actions against Chinese exports, no AD/CVD will be collected for the next two years, the Biden administration announced on June 6. Trade lawyers were astonished by the action, which is based on the authority to temporarily suspend AD/CVD when imports are needed to respond to natural disasters "or other emergencies."
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department erred by not hitting antidumping duty respondent Chandan Steel Limited with adverse facts available based on the company's inaccurate and incomplete reporting of information, the Coalition of American Flange Producers said in a June 3 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The coalition filed its case to challenge Commerce's final results in the administrative review of the AD order on stainless steel flanges from India. The AD petitioner also challenged Commerce's decision not to hit Kisaan Die Tech Private Limited with AFA based on its allegedly "inaccurate and incomplete reporting" (Coalition of American Flange Producers v. United States, CIT #22-00168).
Agricultural net wrap imported by RWW Klerks can only be used in harvesting machinery, and should be classified as a part of harvesting machinery of Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8433, rather than as liquidated by CBP in heading 6005 as a textile material, the importer said in a June 3 motion filed at the Court of International Trade (RKW Klerks Inc. v. United States, CIT # 20-00001).
Even if the Commerce Department finds that solar panels from Southeast Asia are circumventing antidumping and countervailing duty actions against Chinese exports, no AD/CVD will be collected for the next two years, the Biden administration announced on June 6. Trade lawyers were astonished by the action, which is based on the authority to temporarily suspend AD/CVD when imports are needed to respond to natural disasters "or other emergencies."
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a confidential June 1 opinion dismissed a challenge from Turkish steel exporter Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret seeking the reversal of its denied Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Timothy Reif said that the parties have until June 8 to review the bracketed confidential information and the remainder of the opinion to see if anything else should be redacted from the public versions. The U.S. originally moved to toss the case since the subject entries are not liquidated, and Borusan filed the case under Section 1581(a), which requires a protestable decision to occur before such a claim can be made (see 2108260062). In a public judgment, Reif sided with the U.S., dismissing the case (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT #21-00186).
Gun sight inserts that use tritium for powerless illumination in low light conditions should be classified in Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9022 as apparatus that use beta radiation, rather than in heading 9405 as non-electrical lamps, importer Trijicon said in a complaint filed May 31 at the Court of International Trade. Despite a ruling issued by CBP to the contrary, Trijicon said heading 9022 covers apparatus that use beta radiation regardless of end use, and that the use of beta radiation is more specific for tariff classification purposes and harder to satisfy than lamp (Trijicon Inc. v. United States, CIT # 22-00040).
Arguments from plaintiff-appellants in an antidumping duty case, led by Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., are merely a bid to have the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit impermissibly re-weigh the record evidence over surrogate value questions, defendant-appellees Calgon Carbon Corp. and Norbit Americas argued in a May 31 reply brief. Also filing its reply brief was DOJ, arguing that the Commerce Department properly picked Malaysia over Romania as the primary surrogate country (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. Ltd. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1298).