The Court of International Trade partially sided with solar cell importer Aireko Construction, instructing CBP to properly liquidate its entries in accordance with the Commerce Department's instructions, but ruled against Aireko by finding that the importer did not properly challenge the instructions themselves. In a Dec. 7 opinion, Judge Claire Kelly said that CBP needs to correct its error by applying antidumping and countervailing duty rates different from those listed in Commerce's instructions but that Aireko failed to launch a challenge under Section 1581(i) -- CIT's "residual" jurisdiction -- to challenge the instructions.
The Court of International Trade cannot set aside case law finding that subassemblies do not qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion in antidumping and countervailing duty order scope rulings, Judge Stephen Vaden said in a Dec. 6 opinion. Siding with the Commerce Department over plaintiffs China Customs Manufacturing and Greentec Engineering, the court said the plaintiffs' solar roof mountings fall within the scope of the AD/CVD orders on aluminum extrusion from China.
Surety company International Bond & Marine is responsible for over $730,000 in unpaid duties resulting from a diamond jewelry company's fraudulent import scheme, the Department of Justice alleged in a Dec. 6 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade. Due to the terms of the bond agreement between International Bond and the jewelry company, Anaya Gems, the surety must cover the unpaid duties that accrued as a result of Anaya Gems' efforts to undervalue its jewelry shipments and underpay customs duties owed, DOJ said (United States v. International Bond & Marine, Ltd., CIT #21-00611).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade granted a preliminary injunction against the liquidation of two plaintiffs' pig farrowing crate imports after they argued that their case raises serious legal questions over an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case. In a Dec. 6 brief, the plaintiffs, Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co., said that since they have made a showing of irreparable harm, the burden in showing its success on the merits is lowered and that the mere questions raised by the case clear this hurdle. The Department of Justice also signed off on the injunction motion (Ikadan System USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00592).
A confidential opening brief from appellant ABB Enterprise Software is not in compliance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's rules, the appellate court said in a Dec. 6 notice of non-compliance. The Federal Circuit said that the document "does not contain the required proof of service or the proof of service indicates improper service of material that cannot be served through the court’s electronic filing system." ABB's case appeals a Court of International Trade ruling that sided against the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty review. The opening brief in question argued that the CIT wrongly held that Commerce impermissibly speculated when finding that an antidumping duty respondent's reporting error supported disregarding the respondent's entire U.S. and home market databases (see 2111230087) (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems, fka Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2312).
The Department of Justice filed a motion, with the consent of the plaintiff -- palm oil importer Virtus Nutrition -- for an extension of time to reply to an amicus brief since the litigants are nearing a resolution of the case, DOJ said in the Dec. 3 filing. The case concerns a shipment of palm oil entered by Virtus that was excluded from entry by CBP over suspicions that the goods were made with forced labor. Virtus expects a sale and re-exportation of the palm oil following a U.S. Coast Guard inspection of the two-way hydrant system located at the port where the merchandise is being stored, the brief said. Once this inspection is completed, the goods will be on their way (Virtus Nutrition, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00165).
Pirelli Tyre Co. properly showed that it was not under Chinese government control for the first 10 months of an antidumping review period and thus subject to a separate rate analysis, the Commerce Department said in its Dec. 3 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. Since a Chinese company bought Pirelli in the 10th month of the review, though, the company is considered under Chinese government control from that point forward. The case had been remanded so that Commerce could reconsider the first 10 months of the review, before the sale (Qingdao Sentury Tire Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 18-00079).
U.S. Steel was again denied the right to intervene in a Section 232 exclusion denial challenge at the Court of International Trade, with the court holding that the Pennsylvania steel company did not have a legally protectable interest in the case. According to the Dec. 3 opinion, U.S. Steel cannot intervene in the case since it won't be directly affected by the case's outcome. Judge Claire Kelly said that any harm that U.S. Steel would experience as a result of the court granting a Section 232 exclusion would be indirect since the company has no right to the sale of the covered products.
Section 1581(i) Jurisdiction Stands in Liquidation Instruction Challenge, Solar Cell Importer Argues
The Department of Justice's motion to dismiss a challenge to the Commerce Department's liquidation instructions to CBP over MS Solar's solar panels is "nothing more than an effort to avoid judicial scrutiny of its arbitrary and unreasonable actions," MS Solar said in a Nov. 23 brief to the Court of International Trade. The solar panel importer urged the court to accept jurisdiction under the court's Section 1581(i) "residual" jurisdiction provision (MS Solar Investments, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00303).