The Department of Justice, in an antidumping case in the Court of International Trade initially filed by Fine Furniture (Shanghai), requested CIT sustain the Commerce Department's remand results, in Aug. 24 comments. The case stems from an antidumping duty administrative review on multilayered wood flooring from China. Following multiple court decisions and remand results (see 2107130080), Fine Furniture's case was stayed pending a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which eventually found that Fine Furniture is not subject to the antidumping duty order. Since the mandatory respondents in the underlying AD duty order received de minimis rates in Commerce's final determination, Fine Furniture was removed from the review. This led to the AD duty rate for all separate rate respondents falling to zero percent (Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #14-00135). Most recently, the plaintiffs all signed off on the remand results, leaving no party to challenge the redetermination and nothing further to resolve in the litigation (see 2108110023).
The Commerce Department properly used the expected method in an antidumping duty administrative review when it averaged two adverse facts available rates to apply to the non-individually examined respondents, the Department of Justice argued in an Aug. 16 filing at the Court of International Trade. Due to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, Albemarle Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United States, which held that the antidumping duty rate for mandatory respondents should be found to be representative unless enough evidence shows otherwise, Commerce properly used the expected method to find the non-individually examined respondents' rate, it said (PrimeSource Building Products, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03911).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 16-22:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Apple and Intel were the two heavy hitters joining the Section 301 litigation Aug. 20, when two dozen complaints in total were filed at the Court of International Trade seeking to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese goods and get the duties refunded. It was the highest volume of complaints filed on a single day since early in the litigation that will be a year old Sept. 10. Aug. 20 marked two years after the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative published its Federal Register notice imposing List 4A tariffs (see 2108190063). Court rules require plaintiffs to begin an action within two years “after the cause of action first accrues.” Intel “timely filed this action with respect to any entry of merchandise on which List 4A duties have been assessed, and any entry of merchandise on which List 3 duties were not definitively assessed before August 20, 2019,” the chipmaker’s complaint said, using language typical in the others filed the same day. Importers will likely argue alternatively in complaints yet to come that their two-year clocks started when List 4A took effect Sept. 1, 2019, or when they paid their first tariffs or their customs entries reached liquidation.
Apple and Intel were the two heavy hitters joining the Section 301 litigation Friday, when two dozen total complaints were filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese goods and get the duties refunded. It was the highest volume of complaints filed on a single day since early in the litigation that will be a year old on Sept. 10. Friday marked two years after the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative published its Federal Register notice imposing List 4A. Court rules require plaintiffs to begin an action within two years “after the cause of action first accrues.” Intel “timely filed this action with respect to any entry of merchandise on which List 4A duties have been assessed, and any entry of merchandise on which List 3 duties were not definitively assessed before August 20, 2019,” said the chipmaker’s complaint, typifying the others that were filed Friday. Importers will likely argue alternatively in complaints yet to come that their two-year clocks started when List 4A took effect Sept. 1, 2019, or when they actually paid their first tariffs or their customs entries reached liquidation.
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from Aug. 16-20 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Washington state-based importer Keirton USA filed a complaint in the Court of International Trade on Aug. 19 after the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington found that the trade court was the case's proper jurisdictional home. Keirton, a self-described importer of "agricultural equipment used to process cannabis and other farm goods, including hemp and kale" is challenging CBP's deemed exclusions of shipments of such machinery as "drug paraphernalia" (Keirton USA, Inc. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT #21-00452).
There’s been a steady recent uptick in the volume of Section 301 complaints at the Court of International Trade, but lawyers with active cases told us they're not sure if that has anything to do with the two-year anniversary of the Federal Register notice on Aug. 20, 2019, that put the List 4A tariffs into effect on Sept. 1, 2019, on goods from China. All the roughly 3,800 complaints inundating the court, and counting, seek to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariffs and get the paid tariffs refunded on grounds that the duties are unlawful under the 1974 Trade Act and violate 1930 Administrative Procedure Act protections against sloppy rulemakings.