The Court of International Trade's ruling that steel rebar stakes fall within the scope of a Commerce Department antidumping duty order was correct, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a July 2 decision. CIT last year said that the stakes, which are used for holding up grape vines and other plants, are subject to antidumping duties on steel concrete reinforcing bar from China (see 1803130031). Quiedan Company filed the underlying lawsuit with the assertion that the AD order doesn't apply because one side of the stakes is sharpened to a point and the AD order specifies rebar sold in straight lengths. CAFC, like CIT and the Commerce Department, disagreed. "We see no substantive or procedural error in that ruling or in Commerce’s continuation of a suspension of liquidation for Quiedan’s stakes," CAFC said. "Because the Court of International Trade drew the same conclusions, we affirm."
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 following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 24-30:
The 30-day deadline for lawsuits challenging Commerce Department scope rulings is triggered only by physical mailing by post, and not by email, the Court of International Trade said in a July 1 decision that also sustained Commerce’s determination that aluminum pallets made of 6-series alloys are covered by antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 17-23:
The Court of International Trade on June 21 denied a government motion to dismiss an importer’s denied protest challenge, finding “unreasonable” the government’s position that because some entries were listed in an attachment, rather than in the narrative portion of the protest, the protests of those entries were invalid.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 10-16:
The Court of International Trade upheld on June 17 the denial by CBP of more than $276,275.12 in drawback claims from a video technology importer and exporter as untimely. The trade court found that, under CBP’s now-defunct 1993 drawback regulations, the date of filing is when a complete paper claim has been submitted, not when the electronic summary is transmitted. It also held CBP guidance documents did not give the wrong impression that no paper documentation was necessary for drawback claims.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 3-9:
The Court of International Trade on June 7 upheld a Commerce Department ruling that extended antidumping and countervailing duties to cover 5050-grade alloy aluminum extrusions from China (A-570-967/C-570-968), but found Commerce applied those duties months too early without adequate notice.
The Court of International Trade rejected a bid by Mexican tomato growers for an injunction halting the Commerce Department’s withdrawal from an antidumping duty suspension agreement, in a decision issued June 6. The Mexican growers had asked CIT for a court order stopping Commerce from suspending liquidation, collecting cash deposits and resuming its 1996 AD duty investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico (see 1905140026), at least while the trade court considers the growers’ broader challenge to Commerce’s withdrawal from the 2013 accord (see 1905100054). CIT ruled that the Mexican growers are unlikely to prevail in the broader case, because Commerce likely acted within its authority to voluntarily withdraw from suspension agreements with 90 days’ notice. It also said the growers did not prove irreparable harm or that the hardships to the growers outweigh the hardships to domestic industry.