The misclassification of 543 entries of metal lids was simple negligence, not a fraudulent scheme, importer Crown Cork & Seal said in its motion to dismiss parts of an amended government complaint. The motion asks the court to dismiss counts of fraud and gross negligence, leaving only the negligence count (United States v. Crown Cork & Seal, USA, CIT #21-00361).
The Commerce Department erred in its calculations when assigning countervailing duty rates in an administrative review on multilayered wood flooring from China, according to three separate complaints filed at the Court of International Trade. The complaints, all filed on Aug. 17, primarily challenge Commerce's findings of less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) in calculating duty rates and adverse facts applied to the government of China.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 18 upheld the Commerce Department’s decision to apply facts available to production costs for a French steel plate exporter unable to distinguish between costs for its prime and non-prime merchandise, but again remanded the agency’s determination to use sales prices as a stand-in.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 18 dismissed a lawsuit filed by the maker of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps and other importers to challenge an Enforce and Protect Act determination that they evaded antidumping duties on xanthan gum from China. The trade court found the soapmaker, All One God Faith, as well as another importer did not file suit under jurisdiction provisions for denied protests, and so could not overcome the erroneous liquidation of their entries by CBP.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 18 upheld the Commerce Department’s decision to apply facts available to production costs for a French steel plate exporter unable to distinguish between costs for its prime and non-prime merchandise, but again remanded the agency’s determination to use sales prices as a stand-in. Ruling on remand results filed by Commerce in response a Federal Circuit decision on its AD duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from France, the trade court found Commerce did not adequately explain its continued reliance on sales data for the non-prime plate, which are rejects from the production process that aren’t up to standard. CIT did agree with Commerce that the agency may rely on facts available because Dillinger’s lack of data on production costs for producing the non-prime plate affects how costs are allocated for all of the exporter’s merchandise.
Lawyers for the Section 301 test-case plaintiffs, HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, have until Sept. 14 to file their response to the Aug. 1 remand results on the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said a scheduling order Monday from the three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade. DOJ’s reply is due Oct. 28, said the order. The two sides, in a joint status report earlier Monday, agreed on the Sept. 14 date for the plaintiffs to respond to USTR’s remand results, but the government asked for 60 days to Nov. 14 to file its reply, while the plaintiffs asked for the government's reply within 30 days, by Oct. 14. The court also gave the plaintiffs until Nov. 14 to respond to the government’s reply, rejecting DOJ's request to deny the plaintiffs the opportunity for a response. The court “will determine if oral argument is necessary” on USTR's remand results after briefing is complete, said the order. The plaintiffs requested oral argument, and the government took no position on the request.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Lawyers for the Section 301 test-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products have until Sept. 14 to file their response to the Aug. 1 remand results on the lists 3 and 4A tariffs from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said an Aug. 15 scheduling order from the three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade. DOJ’s reply is due 44 days later, by Oct. 28, the order said. The two sides, in a joint status report, had agreed on the Sept. 14 date for the plaintiffs to respond to USTR’s remand results, but the government asked for 60 days to Nov. 14 to file its reply, while the plaintiffs asked for the government's reply within 30 days, by Oct. 14.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 8-14:
Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case will appeal a Court of International Trade decision upholding the rate calculated for non-individually investigated respondents in an antidumping duty administrative review on steel nails from Taiwan (see 2206170040). PrimeSource Building Products and consolidated plaintiffs Cheng Ch International Co., Ltd., China Staple Enterprise Corporation, De Fasteners Inc., Hoyi Plus Co., Ltd., Liang Chyuan Industrial Co., Ltd., Trim International Inc., UJL Industries Co., Ltd., Yu Chi Hardware Co., Ltd., and Zon Mon Co., Ltd. will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to two notices of appeal filed Aug. 12. In the June 16 opinion, the trade court found the plaintiffs did not provide enough evidence to to establish that the expected method -- the practice of averaging adverse facts available rates in the absence of non-AFA, zero or de minimis margins -- should not be used (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S. CIT #20-03911).