The Commerce Department has been illegally expanding the reach of an antidumping duty order on artist canvas from China over years of scope rulings for different parties, a textile company argued in a Feb. 26 motion for judgment filed with the Court of International Trade (Printing Textiles d/b/a/ Berger Textiles v. U.S., CIT # 23-00192).
Turkish exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade challenging the Commerce Department's decision on the date of sale of Kaptan's goods in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 24-00018).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 19-25:
The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over an importer’s case under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) because it has previously ruled that an administrative protest against an entry’s liquidation cannot be brought before the liquidation has occurred, that importer said in a brief contesting the U.S. motion to dismiss (Fraserview Remanufacturing Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00063).
Importer Seneca Foods Corp. opposed the U.S. attempt to extend the deadline to file its remand results in a suit on the Commerce Department's decision to reject the company's requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties. The government asked for another 31 days to file its remand decision after initially being given 90 days to conduct the remand and a 45-day extension (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
A CBP headquarters official, chosen to help shape national policy on de minimis, said that while the trade community welcomed the opportunity for electronic clearance of packages that require partner government agency review, importers are often not following the reasonable care standard required for Type 86 entries. The Type 86 test is for packages that are low enough value to avoid duties under the de minimis statute, but are not eligible for de minimis because they contain goods that PGAs inspect. If importers participate in the test -- and there were more than 623 million packages last fiscal year that were covered -- they must provide a 10-digit Harmonized Tarff Schedule code.
Three U.S. steel companies, Cleveland-Cliffs, Steel Dynamics and SSAB Enterprises, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that Turkish exporter Habas failed to show that the Commerce Department's finding that Habas' Turkish lira price, and not the U.S. dollar price, controlled the amount owed by the exporter's customers at the time of payment was unsupported. Filing a reply brief on Feb. 26, the steel companies said Habas' arguments, which were "long on verbiage and obfuscation but short on specificity and clarity," only presumed the agency's finding to be wrong and did not actually show that it was (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1158).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade: