The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 10 order stayed a case on the Commerce Department's refusal to grant Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions for 60 days so the parties can conclude "a process of coordinating how" Commerce's decision on remand to grant 45 of the exclusions "should be effectuated." The agency changed course last year, granting the exclusions for importer Mirror Metals after finding that the relevant steel article could not be made at a sufficient level in the U.S. (see 2204190016) (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT # 21-00144).
Purchasers of tuna from American Tuna urged the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to move for class certification in their suit that claims that American Tuna and World Wise Foods, its corporate parent, "deceived consumers" by creating the idea that its tuna is caught in U.S. waters. The buyers, led by Jeffrey Craig, said that a "significant portion" of American Tuna's brand tuna, which is branded as "100% American Made," is not caught in the U.S. (Jeffrey Craig, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. American Tuna, S.D. Calif. # 3:22-00473).
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).