CBP and importer Ohka America reached a settlement over the proper tariff classification of photoresists in three different cases at the Court of International Trade. According to the three separate stipulated judgments on agreed statement of facts, the parties reached an agreement on the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for the entries, dropping the duty rate from 6.5% to 3%. CBP originally liquidated the photoresists under HTS subheading 3707.90.32, which provides for "Chemical preparations for photographic uses (other than varnishes, glues, adhesives and similar preparations...: Other:Chemical preparations for photographic uses: Other." The parties agreed, though, to liquidate the entries under subheading 3707.10.00, whch provides for “Chemical preparations for photographic uses (other than varnishes, glues, adhesives and similar preparations). Sensitizing emulsions." The cases were filed in 2005, 2006 and 2008 (Ohka America v. United States, CIT #05-00118, #06-00415, #08-00029).
CBP and Lerner New York reached a settlement over the proper classification of two types of ladies' knitted tops. Filing a stipulated judgment on an agreed statement of facts at the Court of International Trade Aug. 1, the parties settled on a Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for the tops, dropping the duty rate from 17% to 10.9%. The dispute concerned ladies' knitted tops of over 90% cotton and less than 10% spandex with a built-in shelf bra and ladies' knitted tops of manmade fibers with a built-in shelf bra (Lerner New York v. U.S., CIT #05-00412).
Antidumping duty respondent and defendant-intervenor in a case at the Court of International Trade, Shakti Forge Industries, has switched its representation. Filing a notice of substitution of attorney, Shakti parted with its counsel at Barnes Richardson to employ Robert Gosselink and Aqmar Rahman at Trade Pacific. The case concerns the AD investigation on forged steel fittings from India (Bonney Forge v. U.S., CIT #20-03837).
The Commerce Department's "practice" cited by an antidumping duty respondent that says that Commerce will not consider new issues after an undefined point in a proceeding "does not actually exist," AD petitioner Wheatland Tube Co. argued in a July 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Wheatland said that Commerce properly used adverse facts available in the contested antidumping duty review to find that respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. was affiliated with various home market customers and that there is no merit to Saha Thai's claims that information submitted by Wheatland to clarify this affiliation information did not comply with Commerce's regulations (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00627).
The U.S., in a July 28 brief at the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, argued oral argument is needed in a case over alleged Jones Act penalties committed by shipping companies Kloosterboer International Forwarding and Alaska Reefer Management. The U.S. pushed back against KIF and ARM's opposition to oral argument, arguing that the meeting is needed to "fully vet the complex issues in this case" and fully inform the court about the record (Kloosterboer International Forwarding v. United States, D. Alaska #3:21-00198).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 1 order granted the U.S.'s motion to stay a consolidated case contesting an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case after the plaintiffs, led by Dominican manufacturer Kingtom Aluminio, backed off their opposition to the stay. The plaintiffs did so after CBP flipped its evasion finding on importers Global Aluminum Distributor and Hialeah Aluminum Supply. In the Global Aluminum Distributor case, CBP said it no longer believes the importers evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China by transshipping them through Kingtom in the Dominican Republic (see 2206150047). In Kingtom's two cases, the U.S. requested a stay until the court sorts out the Global Aluminum case. The stay was granted with Judge Richard Easton ordering the parties to confer and jointly submit a status report and a proposed briefing schedule 14 days from the date judgment is entered in the Global Aluminum Distributor case (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00072).
The Commerce Department dropped its finding that a particular market situation distorted the price of a key input of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe, in Aug. 2 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade in an antidumping duty case. Prior to this remand, Commerce had already dropped the PMS adjustment to one of the antidumping duty review's mandatory respondents but not the other. On remand for the fourth time in the action, the agency dropped the PMS adjustment for the remaining respondent, dropping non-selected respondent SeAH Steel Corp.'s dumping rate from 19.28% to 9.77% (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00154).
The Commerce Department added certain service-related revenues in antidumping duty respondent Nippon Steel's U.S. price in voluntarily requested remand results, dropping the exporter's dumping margin from 11.70% to 10.12%. Agreeing it "inadvertently" left three service-related expenses out of its calculations of Nippon Steel's U.S. price, Commerce requested the voluntary remand, including them in the price calculations. Nippon Steel still took issue with Commerce's draft revision, prompting the agency to make further revisions to the calculation of the net price used in the differential pricing test and the revenue for the constructed export price (CEP) profit rate (Nippon Steel v. U.S., CIT #21-00533).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Aug. 8 opinion held that tradeable tax credits fall within the regulatory definition of a "price adjustment," meaning the Commerce Department properly deducted the credits from respondent LDC Argentina's export price. Judges Kimberly Moore, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes also ruled that Commerce's use of an international market price for soybeans in its constructed value calculation for biodiesel does not count as a double remedy, even though the U.S. imposed countervailing duties on Argentine soybeans.