Importer NLMK Pennsylvania and the U.S. jointly requested a stay in a suit on the Commerce Department's refusal to grant the company exclusions for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties so that the parties can "focus their efforts on resolving this matter through settlement." Filing a joint motion Aug. 9 for stay at the Court of International Trade, the parties said they have been engaging in settlement talks and an agreement has been reached "in principle" (NLMK Pennsylvania v. U.S., CIT # 21-00507).
The Commerce Department dropped the antidumping duty rate for exporter Nagase & Co. from 27.21% to 15.93% after excluding the "compensation for payment" amount originally listed in the company's general and administrative expense ratio. Submitting its remand results Aug. 9 to the Court of International Trade, Commerce said it reviewed the evidence, including an additional questionnaire submitted by Nagase, and found the compensation for payment represents the reimbursement of a consignee's expenses incurred for making non-subject merchandise (Nagase & Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00574).
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee ruled that importer Cabinets to Go didn't demonstrate that Chinese manufacturer Haiyan's failure to certify its products' country of origin violated any material term of an agreement between the two companies (Cabinets to Go v. Qingdao Haiyan Real Estate Group Co., M.D. Tenn. # 3:21-00711).
The Commerce Department on remand at the Court of International Trade said antidumping duty respondent Fusong Jinlong Group was eligible for a separate rate from the China-wide entity, though the agency ultimately kept the 85.13% margin for the exporter using adverse facts available. Following the remand, the only difference is that the non-individually examined respondents in the 2018-19 review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from China are now levied a 42.57% rate instead of the 0% margin taken from respondent Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. U.S., CIT # 21-00595).
Door Thresholds Importers Tells CAFC Petitioner Ignored Scope Language in Aluminum Extrusions Orders
Antidumping duty petitioner Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee's claims against the exclusion of importers Worldwide Door Components' and Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds from the scope of the AD/CVD orders on aluminum extrusions from China sit on an incomplete reading of the scope, the importers argued. Filing a reply brief on Aug. 8 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Worldwide and Columbia claimed that the petitioner ignored the finished merchandise exclusion in the scope and that the Commerce Department refused to consider this exclusion in its initial scope ruling (Worldwide Door Components v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1532) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1534).
The World Trade Organization released panel reports covering two disputes between the U.S. and India after both countries came to a mutual solution. The countries in July told the Dispute Settlement Body they reached a solution in the disputes, including one disagreement over U.S. tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum and another involving India's imposition of additional duties on certain goods from the U.S. The mutually agreed solution came after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to the White House in June and was announced in conjunction with the resolution of other spats between the nations at the WTO (see 2307190064).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Retail giant Target Corp. will appeal a July Court of International Trade decision, which refused to invalidate a prior court order telling CBP to reliquidate Target's metal-top ironing tables. The notice of appeal says the retailer will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, Judge Leo Gordon said that if Target succeeded, it would call into question whether a party at the court could obtain "full and complete relief," turning the clock back over 40 years on the Article III court powers (see 2307200049) (Target Corp. v. United States, CIT #21-00162).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 7 order stayed a case challenging President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products beyond procedural time limits, pending the Supreme Court of the U.S.'s resolution of a case on the same challenge. Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves, M. Miller Baker and Timothy Stanceu stayed the matter until 65 days after PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S. is settled. Importer PrimeSource filed for a writ of certiorari at the high court at the end of July, asking the court to take up the case to settle ambiguity in the statutes delegating vast legislative power to the executive in favor of restraining this delegation (see 2307270028) (Tempo Global Resources v. U.S., CIT # 20-00066).
Court of International Trade Judge Mark Barnett encouraged parties in an antidumping duty case to involve their junior lawyers in an oral argument proceeding set for Aug. 15. Submitting a letter to the litigants in a suit on the AD investigation on raw honey from India, Barnett said the Federal Bar Council has suggested judges should modify their practice rules to let junior lawyers "take a more active role in oral arguments" (American Honey Producers Association v. United States, CIT # 22-00195).