The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP erred when making its finding that importer CEK Group evaded the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from China by transshipping them through Thailand, CEK said in a March 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Among other things, CEK alleged in its 12-count complaint that CBP failed to address all of the arguments raised by the importer, made its decision without substantial evidence of transshipment and improperly refused to grant CEK access to business confidential information in the case (CEK Group v. United States, CIT #22-00082).
The Court of International Trade remanded an antidumping duty evasion case, in a March 11 order for CBP to fully consider the record. The agency requested the remand after it found out plaintiff Norca Industrial Company was not privy to documents relating to a third-party's visit to a Vietnamese manufacturer's production site. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves limited the remand to the issue of the whole record and not the other issues raised by Norca.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade told litigants in a paperless order to file a proposed stipulated judgment in a countervailing duty case after a resolution of the matter was reached following a voluntary remand from the Commerce Department. Commerce said that a South Korean sewerage fees program was not countervailable, leading to a de minimis rate for plaintiff Hyundai Steel Company. In a March 9 joint status report, Hyundai and the U.S. said that case was resolved following the voluntary remand (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT #21-00012).
The Court of International Trade should deny the U.S.'s motion to dismiss a case from Wheatland Tube Co. seeking to compel CBP to respond to requests for information and a tariff classification ruling, Wheatland said in a March 9 reply brief. DOJ had said the trade court should toss the case, in part, since it already responded to the RFI and petition for a tariff classification. Wheatland disagreed, arguing that CBP's limited response failed to meet the requirements of Section 1516 which mandates that CBP "furnish the classification and the rate of duty imposed upon designated imported merchandise" (Wheatland Tube Company v. United States, CIT #22-00004).
Exporter China Customs Manufacturing's solar panel mount assemblies are "fully and completely assembled" at the time they're imported, thus qualifying for a finished merchandise exclusion from the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, CCM argued. Filing its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 8, CCM, along with Greentec Engineering, argued that the record shows that the solar panel mount assemblies satisfy each of the requirements for the exclusion, including being fully assembled at the time of entry (China Custom Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1345).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should deny Chinese exporter Jangho Group's bid for a rehearing in a countervailing duty case filed to contest Commerce's alleged failure to address the company's alternative arguments, the U.S. said in a March 9 reply brief. Jangho last raised the "long gone" arguments in 2019, and failed to raise its alternative arguments in its post-remand brief, meaning they are "waived" and thus not eligible for further litigation, DOJ argued (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #16-00009).
The Court of International Trade granted steel importer North American Interpipe refunds on Section 232 steel and aluminum duties it paid following court mediation over the company's challenge to the U.S.'s denials of NAI's exclusion requests from the tariffs. Per the public stipulated judgment on agreed-upon fact, Judge M. Miller Baker penned an order which declares that NAI may not appeal (North American Interpipe v. United States, CIT #20-03825).