The International Trade Administration issued the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on glycine from China (A-570-836). The ITA said Baoding Mantong, the only company under review, did not cooperate in the review, and so was assigned to the China-wide entity on the basis of adverse facts available (AFA). The ITA also rescinded the review for 25 companies that did not have shipments to the U.S. during the period of review. The new rates are effective April 8, and will be implemented by CBP soon.
Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the following voluntary recalls April 4 (country of manufacture in parentheses):
On April 4 the Food and Drug Administration posted new and revised versions of the following Import Alerts on the detention without physical examination of:
On April 3-4 the Foreign Agricultural Service issued the following GAIN reports:
The Food Safety and Inspection Service revised export requirements and plant lists for the following countries for March 29 - April 4:
The Court of International Trade is increasing its fees for filing cases. Effective May 1, the fee for filing challenges to protest denials under 28 USC 1581(a) will increase from $150 to $175, while the fee for filing Trade Adjustment Assistance challenges for workers under 28 USC 1581(d)(1) will rise from $25 to $35. Fees for all other actions, including challenges to International Trade Administration determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases, will increase from $350 to $400.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed CBP’s Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification of Kahrs International’s engineered wood flooring as plywood, rather than parquet panels or builder’s joinery. The Court of International Trade had originally sustained CBP’s classification in 2009. Kahrs argued that its engineered wood flooring did not meet the commercial meaning of plywood. But CAFC said the commercial definition of a product is irrelevant for tariff provisions that describe products by name rather than use.
The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Administration’s application of total adverse facts available to Mukand, Ltd.’s antidumping duty rate, despite the company’s omission of only one piece of data, in the 2009-10 administrative review of stainless steel bar from India (A-533-810). Mukand had declined to provide information on cost differences between producing stainless steel bar of various sizes, but had otherwise fully cooperated. CIT agreed with the ITA in its application of total AFA, finding that the requested information was so important to calculating Mukand’s AD rate that the rate could not have been accurately calculated without it.
The Court of International Trade denied Cutter & Buck’s challenge to CBP’s valuation of 168 entries of apparel. Cutter & Buck argued that CBP should have deducted international freight charges when arriving at the price actually paid or payable for the purpose of calculating transaction value. The shipments were subject to a late-delivery clause that shifted responsibility for shipping to the seller. Cutter & Buck said the clause also changed the terms of sale from free on board (FOB) to cost, insurance, and freight (CIF), so the cost of shipping was included in the invoice, and deductible, as a result of the late delivery. But the court found that there was no evidence to support Cutter & Buck’s claim that the invoice price included the international freight charges, so they could not be deducted.
A listing of recent antidumping and countervailing duty messages from the International Trade Administration posted to CBP's website April 4, along with the case number(s) and CBP message number, is provided below. The messages are available by searching for the listed CBP message number at addcvd.cbp.gov. (CBP occasionally adds backdated messages without otherwise indicating which message was added. ITT will include a message date in parentheses in such cases.)