The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
While plaintiffs in a solar cell antidumping review case were satisfied with the Commerce Department's switch from adverse facts available and how it values silver paste on remand, they still contest the agency's positions on how to value backsheets and ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) using surrogate data. In comments to the Court of International Trade, the plaintiffs, led by Risen Energy, argued the Commerce's bid to further defend its valuation of backsheet and EVA inputs is unsupported by substantial evidence (Risen Energy v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-03743).
CBP and importer Launchlab reached a deal on the proper tariff classification of the company's pet carriers, the parties announced in an Aug. 4 stipulated judgment on agreed statement of facts at the Court of International Trade. The pet carriers were liquidated under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4202.92.90 as "travel, sports or similar bags," dutiable at 17.6%. Per the agreement, the pet carriers will be liquidated under subheading 6307.90.98 as other textile articles, dutiable at 7%. CBP issue refunds with interest, settling a case that began seven years ago (Launchlab v. U.S., CIT #15-00288).
Antidumping duty respondent Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi relied on a "mischaracterization of the facts" when arguing against the Commerce Department's use of home market prices denominated in Turkish lira, antidumping petitioners, led by Cleveland-Cliffs, argued in an Aug. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The petitioners said that, contrary to the respondent's contention, the invoice stated prices in lira and that it was the lira value and not the U.S. dollar value that controlled how much the customer paid, making Commerce's move legal (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. United States, CIT #21-00527).
The U.S.'s "unreasonable delay" in asserting claims seeking to collect antiduming duties on entries of canned mushrooms brought in between 2000 and 2001 warrants dismissal of its case at the Court of International Trade seeking the duties, surety company American Home Assurance Co. (AHAC) argued in an Aug. 1 reply brief. Responding to the court's request for more briefing over AHAC's affirmative defense and claims of prejudice, the surety company said that it has not been able to actually provide significant evidence of actual harm "despite best efforts," but that the case should be decided on statute of limitations grounds (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175).
Four honey importers -- Honey Solutions, Sunland Trading, Export Packers Co. and Sweet Harvest Foods -- filed four nearly identical complaints at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 4 arguing against the International Trade Commission's decision that led to the antidumping duty order on raw honey from Vietnam. The six-count complaints argue against that, contrary to the ITC's findings, the Vietnamese import volume has not jumped enough to undermine the remedial effect of the antidumping order such as to require a critical circumstances determination.
The Commerce Department cannot deduct Section 232 national security duties from antidumping duty respondent Borusan Mannesman's U.S. price because the duties are remedial, temporary and deducting them would count as a double remedy, making them unlike normal customs duties, the respondent argued. Filing a reply brief Aug. 4 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the respondent said Commerce failed to conduct a "fulsome analysis" of whether the Section 232 duties are more like normal customs duties or to special duties, like Section 201 safeguards, and instead "confined its analysis" to finding distinctions between Section 232 and Section 201 duties. The agency also failed to acknowledge the "legal and constitutional distinction between regular duties imposed by Congress" and special duties imposed by the president (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2097).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 4 order denied defendant Greenlight Organic and Parambir Singh Aulakh's motion for summary judgment over the date that the U.S. discovered customs fraud for the purpose of finding whether the statute of limitations had run out. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that the undisputed facts don't back any of three dates floated by the defendants as the date that the U.S. first received evidence of Greenlight's double invoicing scheme. In the scheme, Greenlight is accused of fraudulently misclassifying its Vietnam-origin knit garments.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: