The Commerce Department is asking for comments on its withdrawal of regulations on “targeted dumping,” after the Court of International Trade in June 2013 found that withdrawal to be illegal. Commerce had decided to stop applying its “limiting rule” in antidumping proceedings in 2008. But in June 2013, the Court of International Trade found the agency didn’t allow for a notice and comment period, as required, and said the old regulations remain in effect. In response, Commerce is now issuing a proposed rule that would continue not to apply the former targeted dumping rule, and is asking for comments on the issue by Oct. 31.
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.
The Court of International Trade sustained remand results in the case of SeAH Steel Corp. and Kurt Orban Partners vs the U.S., and entered its judgment accordingly, it said in a Sept. 25 decision. It said no party intends to file comments on the remand results. SeAH is a Korean producer and exporter of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and Kurt Orban is a U.S. importer of the same merchandise. They had contested the Final Results of the Department of Commerce's 17th administrative review of the antidumping duty order for such pipe from Korea.
The Court of International Trade vacated the remainder of its decision in La Crosse Technology vs. the U.S. and said La Crosse model nos. WS-9013 and -9210 are classifiable under subheading 9025.80.10, Harmonized Tariff Schedule for 2005 or 2006. It also said La Crosse model nos. WS-1610, -2308, -2310, -2315, -2317, -3510, -3512, -3610, -7014, -7042, -7049, -7159, -7211, -7394, -7395, -8025, -8035, -8157, -8610, -9020, -9025, -9031, -9033, -9035, -9043, -9055, -9075, -9096, -9115, -9118, -9119, -9151, -9520, -9600 and -9611, and WT-5130, -5432, and -5442, are classifiable under subheading 9015.80.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule for 2005 or 2006, and that La Crosse model nos. WS-8117, -8236, and WT-5120 are classifiable under subheading 9105.91.40, Harmonized Tariff Schedule for 2005 or 2006.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Sept. 16-20 in case they were missed.
The Court of International Trade dismissed on Sept. 18 an importer’s challenge to the assessment of additional antidumping duties on nine entries of wooden bedroom furniture from China, because the importer hadn’t yet paid the duties as required for a court hearing. Importer E & S Express said CBP could have assessed at least some of the duties on a continuous bond E & S had with a surety. CIT ruled that what CBP could have done is irrelevant, because the law makes actual payment of duties mandatory before a denied protest can be challenged under 28 USC 1581(a).
The Court of International Trade dismissed on Sept. 16 part of a Chinese company’s challenge of its high $4.71/kg antidumping duty rate assigned to it after the Commerce Department ended a new shipper review for the company. Qingdao Maycarrier Import & Export had requested both a new shipper review and an administrative review on fresh garlic from China (A-570-831) in the hopes of obtaining a lower AD rate. But Commerce ended the new shipper review because the company purportedly wasn’t a new shipper. And it refused a normal administrative review for the company. Part of Maycarrier’s court complaint directly addressed the refusal of administrative review. CIT dismissed the part of the complaint related to the refusal of administrative review, because it was filed before that review was finalized, and not within 60 days of the final results as required by law. The parts of the complaint directly challenging the new shipper review survive.
The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed on Sept. 16 a lower court decision that found Del Monte’s tuna product, packed in small amounts of oil, should nonetheless be classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as having been packed “in oil.” The Court of International Trade had in October said the amount of oil was irrelevant for classification purposes, because neither the HTS nor prior court rulings set a minimum threshold for what it means to be packed “in oil” (see 12101601). CAFC agreed, finding it unnecessary to look beyond the terms of the tariff schedule. The Appeals Court also upheld CIT’s ruling on valuation “formulas.”
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Sept. 3 - Sept. 6 in case they were missed.
CIT Orders Recalc of Donguan's Rate in Third Remand of 2008 China Wooden Bedroom Furniture AD Review
The Court of International Trade remanded for the third time the duty rate assigned to four companies in the 2008 antidumping duty administrative review on wooden bedroom furniture from China (A-570-890). The Commerce Department had based part of the rate on a small percentage of overall sales with high prices to punish the companies for their lack of cooperation. It set a 43.23% AD rate for Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd.; Taicang Sunrise Wood Industry Co., Ltd.; Taicang Fairmount Designs Furniture Co., Ltd.; and Meizhou Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd. CIT remanded the rate in June 2012 (see 12060729) and again in April 2013 (see 13040903), because the rate was too high and didn’t reflect commercial reality. This time, Commerce set a threshold of 0.04% of total sales for a single sale to determine the entire rate for a given product. But CIT again found the agency’s reliance on a “minuscule” percentage of sales meant the rate wasn’t rooted in commercial reality, and remanded for Commerce recalculation.
The Court of International Trade denied on Sept. 4 a constitutional challenge to the requirement that importers pay duties in full before challenging a customs protest. International Custom Products had argued that it faced payment of an insurmountable sum, but the court said the requirement is set in stone. The challenge revolved around a CBP notice of action that CIT had found in November to have improperly revoked an earlier ruling letter on the classification of ICP’s white sauce (see 12112123). That had resulted in a 2,400 percent increase in duty liability for ICP (see 12121239). But while ICP in November was successful in getting a refund on one of 99 entries affected by the notice of action, CIT on Sept. 4 dismissed ICPs challenge related to another 13 entries because the company hadn’t yet paid the required $28 million in additional duties.