Court of International Trade

The Commerce Department is lowering to 82.04% the antidumping duty rate for preserved mushrooms from China exported by Blue Field (Sichuan) Food Industrial Co., Ltd. and entered between February 2010 and January 2011. The agency had originally assigned Blue Field an AD rate of 308.33% in an administrative review (see 12091017), but the Court of International Trade told Commerce the rate was too high in November (see 13112530). The new rate will take effect if the CIT decision isn’t appealed. Current cash deposits won’t be affected by this change, because Blue Field was assigned the 308.33% China-wide AD rate in a more recent review (see 14030316).

The Court of International Trade ruled on May 21 that an importer’s lawsuit related to seized and excluded entries of apparel should be decided by a U.S. District Court, but stayed the case because some issues may still be left unresolved. The court found the case to be a seizure case at heart, which means it’s outside of the court’s jurisdiction. But issues related to the deemed exclusion of the merchandise mean the court may still decide aspects of the case once the seizure issue is resolved. CIT also ruled on when presentation of merchandise takes place, agreeing with CBP that it occurs when a shipment is taken for physical inspection by CBP, and not the time an entry is filed.

Importers can file lawsuits against Customs for denying their antidumping and countervailing duty-related protests if they are challenging a clear CBP error, said the Court of International Trade May 13 as it denied CBP’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by LDA Incorporado. Although CBP cannot normally be challenged for AD/CV duty decisions -- that charge lies with the Commerce Department and International Trade Commission -- in this case, LDA took issue with CBP’s application of Commerce’s instructions, and not the instructions themselves.

Reconciliation and post-importation duty free claims are two separate programs that rely on two separate sets of laws and have different recordkeeping requirements, said the Court of International Trade May 9 as it sustained CBP’s denial of a post-importation NAFTA claim because of a late certificate of origin. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had ordered CBP to explain why it consistently grants waivers of certificates of origin for reconciliation entries, but didn’t afford the same treatment to Ford. CBP explained that differences in the programs mean it is able to waive only the filing of the certificate for reconciliation, but can only irreversibly waive “possession” for post-importation claims.

The Court of International Trade on May 5 ordered the Commerce Department to reconsider its decision during the original antidumping duty investigation on drawn stainless steel sinks to assign a Chinese exporter a punitive rate because of a filing that was only 16 hours late.

The Court of International Trade sustained the 2.69% antidumping duty rate assigned to SeAH Steel Corp. in the 2009-10 antidumping duty administrative review on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. CIT had told the Commerce Department to reconsider the rate in late 2013, because of issues related to how the agency priced SeAH’s inputs sourced from affiliated companies (see 12060824). On remand, Commerce made no change to the rate. But neither SeAH nor domestic industry contested the remand redetermination, so the rate will stand.

The Court of International Trade on April 29 agreed to let the Commerce Department take another look into Advanced Technology & Materials Co.’s eligibility for its own antidumping duty rate in the 2009-10 administrative review on diamond sawblades from China (A-570-900). AT&M had gotten a zero AD duty rate in the final results. But the Chinese company’s independence from Chinese state control was called into question by an October 2013 CIT decision related to the original AD duty investigation (see 13101501). CIT granted Commerce’s request to reconsider the 2009-10 review in light of the decision.

The Court of International Trade on April 29 rejected a bid by BP Oil Supply Co. to get drawback on over 40 million barrels of crude oil it imported in the mid-1990s. Although the imported crude and the exported crude had been of different types, BP had requested unused merchandise drawback based on the fact that the different types of oil were about the same weight. But both CBP and CIT found that BP failed to provide enough evidence that the imported and exported oil were commercially interchangeable. And the court also found that the way the Alaska oil industry works means that the exported oil wasn’t unused, either.

The Court of International Trade ordered the Commerce Department to revisit the antidumping duty rate it assigned to Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. in the 2008-09 administrative review of fresh garlic from China. Commerce had assigned Shenzhen Xinboda an AD duty rate of $0.06 per kilogram. In a 92-page opinion covering a range of issues, Judge Delissa Ridgway took issue with Commerce’s selection of surrogate values used to price Shenzhen Xinboda’s inputs and labor wage rates, among other things. She also granted Commerce’s request to further explain its use of zeroing in administrative reviews, and told the agency to specifically address zeroing for non-market economy countries. Any change in the AD rate for Shenzhen Xinboda would not affect current AD duty cash deposit rates, because new AD duty rates have been set in more recent administrative reviews.

The Court of International Trade again remanded antidumping duty rate Commerce set for Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. in the 2008-09 administrative review on floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables from China (A-570-888). Commerce had in response to CIT’s first remand (see 13060336) kept Since Hardware’s AD rate at 83.83% but set Foshan Shunde’s rate at 22.46%. The court refused to accept Foshan Shunde’s rate because of ongoing issues with Commerce’s explanation of how it factored in brokerage and handling expenses. Any change to the rate would affect entries of subject merchandise from August 2008 -- July 2009. Cash deposit rates for Foshan Shunde wouldn’t change because new rates have been set in more recent administrative reviews (see 12091019).