Court of International Trade

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 31 rejected a Commerce Department ruling on the extent of antidumping duties on petroleum wax candles from China, casting yet more uncertainty onto the agency’s current interpretation of the scope of that order. The court held Commerce based its ruling, which found over 200 novelty holiday candles imported by Trade Associates Group to be subject to AD duties, on an overbroad reading of the scope. In Commerce’s view, which had been codified in a 2011 “scope clarification,” the scope applied to all candles regardless of shape, unless specifically excluded from duty liability. CIT found that reading too expansive, finding a list of shapes of candles in the scope language limited the coverage of AD duties only to candles of those shapes.

Beef jerky is correctly classified as a cured meat in the tariff schedule, said the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 3 as it denied an appeal by importer Link Snacks. Although the production of beef jerky involves an additional drying process, the product is also cured beforehand, which puts it squarely within the parameters of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for meat “of bovine animals: cured or pickled,” said CAFC.

Curtain wall units are “parts” that are subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China (A-570-967/C-570-968), said the Court of International Trade on Jan. 30 as it affirmed a Commerce Department scope ruling. Although curtain wall units are highly manufactured, and need only be fastened together to form a completed building facade, the term “part” in the scope of the AD/CVD orders on aluminum extrusions doesn’t necessarily mean something small or basic, said the court.

The term “bedroom” in the scope of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China does not automatically exclude products intended for use outside of bedrooms from AD duties, said the Court of International Trade on Jan. 29 as it affirmed a Commerce Department scope ruling. Although Medline Industries argued its wooden headboards and footboards were intended for use in hospitals and shouldn’t be subject to AD duties, the court said the term “bedroom” doesn’t limit the order’s scope to a particular end use. Instead, the order lists products that could be considered “wooden bedroom furniture,” and wooden headboards and footboards are on that list, said CIT.

A committee that advises the Court of International Trade is beginning a preliminary look into the possibility of a “small claims” customs court, according to several industry lawyers. The CIT Advisory Committee on Rules recently created a subcommittee to look into the feasibility of the idea, which could make it cheaper and quicker for importers to challenge some CBP classification decisions that currently don’t merit the time and money required for litigation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 24 gave a green light to refunds of antidumping and countervailing duty cash deposits collected during the investigations on utility scale wind towers from China. The domestic Wind Tower Trade Coalition had appealed from the Court of International Trade, after the lower court denied an injunction preventing liquidation of wind towers from China entered between June 6, 2012, and Feb. 12, 2013. CAFC agreed with the lower court’s decision, finding the lawsuit unlikely to succeed, and refused to grant a preliminary injunction putting liquidation on hold.

The Court of International Trade again affirmed the exception for finished heat sinks from antidumping duties on aluminum extrusions from China (A-570-967/C-570-968). Having already approved the International Trade Commission’s partial injury determination that led to the exception (see 12102228), CIT on Jan. 23 said the Commerce Department’s implementation in the scope of the orders was reasonable.

A law requiring interest on customs bonds that are subject to lawsuits for recovery of duties does not apply to antidumping duties, said the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 23 decision. Although 19 USC 580 requires interest on bonds when the “recovery of duties” is at stake, antidumping duties are separate from regular duties and were not intended to be included under the law when it was added to the books in 1799.

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 22 rejected arguments from both sides in a customs valuation dispute between the government and an importer of apparel purchased from a related party. CIT ruled against the government’s defense of CBP’s use of transaction value, because it didn’t meet CBP’s own requirement of proof that prices were set according to normal industry pricing behavior. But the court also spurned claims by importer Macclenny Products that the entries of men’s suit jackets from Nicaragua should have instead been appraised using deductive value, because the company didn’t show that the related-party transaction actually affected the price.

The Court of International Trade sustained the final results of the 2008-09 antidumping duty administrative review on polyethylene film, sheet, and strip from the United Arab Emirates, in a Jan. 8 decision recently released to the public. JBF RAK disputed the Commerce Department’s use of zeroing in the review, as well as its policy of issuing liquidation instructions 15 days after the final results of the review. CIT refused to hear either argument. The zeroing question has been resolved by other court cases, and JBF RAK failed to bring up the 15-day liquidation policy with Commerce during the review, as required by the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court also rejected JBF RAK’s challenge to Commerce’s calculation of its home market prices.