The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 11-17:
Court of International Trade
The United States Court of International Trade is a federal court which has national jurisdiction over civil actions regarding the customs and international trade laws of the United States. The Court was established under Article III of the Constitution by the Customs Courts Act of 1980. The Court consists of nine judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is located in New York City. The Court has jurisdiction throughout the United States and has exclusive jurisdictional authority to decide civil action pertaining to international trade against the United States or entities representing the United States.
Screws imported by GRK Canada are classifiable in the tariff schedule as self-tapping screws, and not wood screws, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued July 15 (here). Ruling on the case for the second time after the Federal Circuit, on appeal, controversially ordered CIT to consider the screws’ intended use (see 14080420), the trade court again concluded that GRK’s screws share the physical characteristics of self-tapping screws. This time, however, CIT also noted the screws’ suitability for use in materials other than wood.
The Commerce Department is increasing antidumping duty cash deposit rates for exporters of boltless steel shelving prepackaged for sale from China (A-570-018) (here), implementing a recent Court of International Trade decision on its adjustment of raw dumping margins for export subsidies found in the concurrent countervailing duty investigation. The agency had in a 2016 AD duty order set cash deposit rates at 1.49% for all individually investigated Chinese companies, and at 96.62% for the China-wide entity (see 1510200022). Commerce is now changing these cash deposit rates as follows:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 4-10:
The Court of International Trade on July 5 ruled towel racks and cabinet handles imported by IKEA are subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, finding neither qualifies for the finished merchandise or finished goods kits exemptions. Despite disagreeing with Commerce’s original reasoning in a scope ruling issued in April 2015 (see 1505050017), CIT in two separate opinions (here) and (here) held that IKEA’s products nonetheless are not exempt under either carve-out because they are unassembled and include only an aluminum extrusion and fasteners.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 27 - July 3:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a challenge brought by Hutchison Quality Furniture over deemed liquidations for imports of wooden bedroom furniture from China. The Court of International Trade dismissed the case in 2015 due to a lack of jurisdiction (see 1506100011). The appeals court said in the July 6 decision (here) that CIT was correct to dismiss the case because the "true nature" of Hutchison's suit involves protestable actions by CBP. Although Hutchison did file a protest, it was submitted by mistake and did not raise the issues involved in the case, the court said. "The record demonstrates that Hutchison not only could have filed a protest, but that it in fact did so after Customs liquidated its entries," it said.
The Court of International Trade recently ordered the International Trade Commission to reconsider its 2013 finding that dumped and illegally subsidized imports of hardwood plywood from China do not injure U.S. domestic industry, in a decision publicly released on June 24 (here). The court’s order could eventually result in the resumption of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on hardwood plywood from China and the eventual imposition of duties, after the ITC had brought the investigations to a close with no duties imposed with its final negative injury determination (see 13110524). The court ruled that the ITC failed to take certain factors into account when finding no material injury or threat of material injury. The commission’s remand results are due Sept. 8.
The Court of International Trade on June 28 ordered the Commerce Department to reconsider a 2014 decision not to impose antidumping duties on prestressed concrete steel rail tie wire (here). The court took issue with certain aspects of how Commerce calculated the zero percent AD duty rate for Siam Industrial Wire. Commerce had also requested the court allow it to reconsider other aspects of Siam Industrial Wire’s rate. As the decision by Commerce not to impose AD duties on steel rail tie wire from Thailand was based on the zero percent rate assigned to Siam Industrial Wire, the decision could eventually result in a reversal of Commerce’s determination and the imposition of AD duties.
The Court of International Trade is considering changes to its rules that would encourage parties to antidumping and countervailing duty cases to file a single joint appendix containing the parts of the administrative records cited by all parties (here). The amendments to Rule 56.2 and the Standard Chambers procedures would “provide a default option” for the filing of a joint appendix after all briefs have been filed and after all comments have been filed on a remand redetermination, according to a note on the changes provided by the CIT rules advisory committee. An “alternative option preserves the requirement for a separate appendix to be filed each time a party files a brief or comments on a remand determination and does not require a joint appendix after all briefs have been filed,” the advisory committee note said. Comments are due July 27.