Court of International Trade

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 15 sent back down the results of the 2009-10 antidumping duty administrative review on tapered roller bearings from China, ordering the Commerce Department to take another look at the rate it assigned to Changshan Peer Bearing. A change to the way Commerce valued some of the inputs Peer Bearing used to produce its bearings caused the companies AD rate to rise from 5.61% at the preliminary stage to 14.98% in the final results. CIT ruled that Commerce didn’t explain why it changed to the new data for valuing Peer Bearing’s inputs.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 26 ordered the International Trade Commission to take another look at its decision to end the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on bottom-mount combination refrigerator-freezers from South Korea and Mexico. The ITC ended the proceedings in April 2012 with no AD/CV duties imposed after finding domestic industry wasn’t injured by Mexican and South Korea imports (see 12041807). Although it agreed with most of the ITC’s findings, the court said it was concerned that the ITC may have double counted in its calculations when it said that domestic sales were not declining during the period under investigation. The ITC argued that any change would be insignificant and wouldn’t affect its overall negative injury determination, but CIT said it has enough doubts that the ITC needs to go back and make sure.

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 10 approved penalties totaling $324,687 against an importer for misclassifying entries of wallets and handbags and underpaying customs duties. The court had in October found defendant Lafidale to be liable for penalties after the company failed to defend itself, but didn’t allow the government to collect because of discrepancies in how the penalty amount was calculated (see 13103027). CIT found a correction submitted to the court in December to be a sufficient basis for the penalty amount, and entered judgment in favor of the government.

The Court of International Trade sustained zero percent antidumping duty rates set for POSCO and Hyundai HYSCO in the final results of the 2009-10 administrative review of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from South Korea (A-580-816), in a recently released opinion dated Dec. 27. The zero rate for POSCO resulted in its exclusion from the order under the Commerce Department’s old regulation allowing partial revocation for companies that don’t dump in three consecutive administrative reviews. U.S. Steel and Nucor challenged revocation for the company, among other things, arguing market conditions during the review period, including the worldwide economic downturn, indicated that POSCO would resume dumping if duties were lifted. Absent evidence that POSCO would actually resume underselling in the absence of AD duties, such arguments were speculative, and Commerce was not required to address them, said the court.

The Court of International Trade denied challenges from both sides of a dispute over the 2009-10 antidumping duty administrative review on frozen warmwater shrimp from India (A-533-840). Indian companies Apex Exports and Falcon Marine Exports argued that refunds it received on prior AD duty payments should offset certain costs that had resulted in a higher AD duty rate for the companies. On the other hand, domestic petitioners said past AD duty payments should be deducted from U.S. prices for the purposes of the duty calculation. In a recently released opinion dated Dec. 31, the court rejected both arguments and sustained Commerce’s final results.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 27 affirmed the government’s right to collect over $6 million in surety bonds from Great American Insurance Co. to cover antidumping duties owed on entries of freshwater crawfish tail meat from China. The court said CBP’s failure to notify Great American of the suspension of liquidation of the entries did not invalidate the government lawsuit or the bonds, upholding an August 2011 decision from the Court of International Trade (see 11090903).

Despite objections from importer Shah Brothers, the Court of International Trade on Dec. 27 dismissed a challenge to CBP’s tariff classification of the company’s tobacco product after the government conceded defeat. The decision to reliquidate the “gutkha” as chewing tobacco instead of snuff will result in a refund of excess excise taxes paid on the entries to Shah Bros. The importer wanted to continue its lawsuit on the grounds that CBP would continue to classify the Indian smokeless tobacco as snuff unless the court mandated a change to agency procedure. But the court said no controversy remained to litigate, and told Shah Bros. it could file another lawsuit if it found fault with CBP’s treatment of a future entry.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 26 slapped yet more penalties on a Laredo-based customs broker whose violations were already the subject of another civil suit and a criminal case. The court ordered Alejandro Santos to pay $30,000 for misclassifying two shipments of pesticides and failing to file the notice of arrival required by the Environmental Protection Agency. The court had already ordered $19,000 in penalties against Santos in December 2012 for unrelated violations of customs laws. Santos also faces prison time after pleading guilty in May to a criminal customs case in the Southern Texas District Court.

Best Key Textiles asked the Court of International Trade on Dec. 23 to reconsider its dismissal of the company’s challenge to CBP’s revocation of a ruling on the company’s metallized yarn. As a challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act to CBP’s alleged misconduct during the revocation proceeding, CIT can hear the case if it chooses, said Best Key. But if not, the interests of justice would best be served by transferring the case to a federal district court so Best Key can get a fair hearing, it said.

The Court of International Trade weighed in on the classification of combination digital cameras and camcorders, finding on Dec. 23 that they are classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule’s provision for “digital still image video cameras.” CBP had said classification of digital cameras should be determined by whether the product’s principal function is for capturing still or moving images. But CIT found that CBP had misinterpreted the tariff schedule, and that digital cameras for either still or moving images, or combinations of both, belonged in the same subheading and enter duty free.