Door thresholds assembled from aluminum extrusions and non-aluminum components are not always subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, the Court of International Trade said in an Aug. 27 decision. Reversing positions taken by Commerce in a scope ruling issued in late 2018 (see 1901150033), the trade court found mentions of door thresholds in the scope as subject merchandise only refer to whole aluminum extrusions used as thresholds, and not assemblies containing extruded aluminum.
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.
CBP didn't deviate from an established classification treatment for imported bike seats for kids when it applied a higher duty classification than what was sought by the importer, the Court of International Trade said in an Aug. 25 decision. The finding is the result of a lawsuit filed by Kent International, which said CBP didn't give Kent the same treatment as competitors when it classified Kent child bicycle seat entries in heading 8714, dutiable at 10 percent, rather than in a duty-free provision of subheading 9401.80. CBP declined to reliquidate the entries in 2015 (see 1504290018).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 17-23:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 10-16:
The Commerce Department is amending countervailing duty cash deposit rates for some exporters subject to CV duties on crystalline silicon solar products from China (C-570-011), it said in a notice implementing a recent Court of International Trade decision that invalidated rates the agency set in the final results of an administrative review it issued in 2017 (see 1709110015). Commerce is lowering cash deposit rates for Perlight and Sunny Apex as a result of the decision. Changes announced in the notice, released Aug. 14, are applicable to entries on or after that date, as follows:
The Commerce Department will decrease the countervailing duty cash deposit rate in effect for an exporter of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China (C-570-980), implementing a recent Court of International Trade decision that ordered Commerce to recalculate rates set in an administrative review completed in 2017 (see 1710050033), it said in a notice released Aug. 14. As a result of its recalculation, the CV duty cash deposit rate for BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd. will fall to 6.44% (from 17.49%). The new rate will apply to subject merchandise entered on or after Aug. 14, 2020.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 13 granted a government motion to reconsider its refusal to implement a ban on seafood imports from New Zealand for the country’s failure to protect the endangered Maui dolphin. CIT says new developments since a petition for the ban was denied, including the issuance by the New Zealand government of new regulations protecting the Maui dolphin from harmful fishing practices, mean the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should be given the chance to reconsider its denial. CIT set an Oct. 30 deadline for NOAA’s remand redetermination. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and Sea Shepherd New Zealand filed the lawsuit in May, seeking a court order directing NOAA to ban seafood from New Zealand (see 2005220048).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 3-9:
An importer of apparel warehoused in Canada does not have enough documentation for its entries to qualify for duty-free entry as previously imported goods exported under agreement and re-imported under subheading 9801.00.20, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued Aug. 7.
The Commerce Department must reconsider its decision to deny an importer’s requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel tariffs, and flesh out the scant rationale the agency offered alongside the denials, the Court of International Trade said in an Aug. 5 decision.