When a former TV receiver maker, Five Rivers Electronics Innovation LLC, sought a share of the duties distributed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection for fiscal year 2009 on color television receivers from China under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (aka the Byrd Amendment), CBP denied the certification because the firm no longer produced any sets in 2009. The manufacturer sued, arguing that “[t]o force a company that has been injured by the dumped imports to continue to produce subject product especially in the face of continued dumping and other harsh economic conditions, not only defies logic but is contrary to the purpose behind the law.” However, the Court of International Trade ruled that Congress, through the CDSOA statute, “explicitly favored domestic producers who remain in production,” and dismissed the complaint. Note that the CDSOA was repealed in 2006. (Slip Op. 11-28, dated 03/14/11)

A Turkish producer/exporter of welded carbon steel pipe and tube asked the Court of International Trade to delay decisions in the company’s current suit over the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review for the period May 1, 2008 through April 30, 2009. The Turkish company, Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanyi ve Ticaret A.S., argued that appeals of other cases now before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (including the Saha Thai case) may affect its challenge of two practices of the International Trade Administration: the inclusion of unpaid import duties in production cost calculations, and “zeroing” (counting only transactions with positive dumping margins and omitting non-dumped sales) in the calculation of weighted averaged dumping margins. The CIT ruled that the appeals court had not yet precisely addressed the zeroing question in the circumstances applicable to Borusan, and issued a stay pending the exhaustion of the right of appeal in the two cases bearing on Borusan’s challenges. (Slip Op. 11-30, dated 03/22/11).

The U.S. Supreme Court released its 6-2 ruling in Kasten v. St. Gobain that an employee’s oral assertion of objections qualifies as filing a complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA). The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and others filed an amicus brief in this case arguing that the Fair Labor Standards Act provision is clear and narrower than similar provisions under other federal civil rights statutes which prohibit retaliation based on an individual’s mere opposition to an employment practice. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

In Ford Motor Company v. the U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a CIT decision, ruling that so long as an importer's claim for post-entry duty refunds for NAFTA preferential treatment of imports was timely filed within one year of importation, the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to consider whether Customs should accept Ford’s late-filed NAFTA Certificates of Origin.

Russian producer-exporter PSC challenged the International Trade Administration’s use of a 43.58% adverse antidumping duty rate in the April 2007 - March 2008 AD review of magnesium metal from Russia. PSC VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation and VSMPO-Tirus, U.S., Inc. (collectively, PSC) had withdrawn from the review, citing the burden of multiple verifications, among other causes.

The Watanabe Group asked the Court of International Trade to reconsider and vacate its decision upholding the ITA’s assignment of the China-wide rate of 258.21% in the antidumping duty administrative review of certain lined paper products from China for the period September 2007 through August 2008.

Lindsey Manufacturing Company and two of its executives have filed a motion to dismiss their indictment on paying bribes to employees of Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE), a state-owned utility company, in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The defendants will argue that employees of a state owned corporation do not qualify as foreign officials under the FCPA. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for March 21, 2011.

In the second remand of the April 2006 -- March 2007 antidumping duty administrative review of pure and alloyed magnesium metal from the Russian Federation, the Court of International Trade ordered the International Trade Administration to recalculate the value of chlorine gas used in the production process. Producer/exporter PSC VSMPO Avisma Corporation and VSMPA Tirus, U.S., Inc. challenged the ITA’s subsequent redetermination results, arguing that the agency relied on an incorrect database in its recalculations. However, the court found the agency had supported its decision with substantial evidence and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 09/02/10 news, 10090217, for BP summary of prior court decision.)

In the May 2007 - April 2008 antidumping duty administrative review of ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan, the International Trade Administration selected only the 4 largest producer/exporters as mandatory respondents and reviewed no others, “due to limited resources.” Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd. challenged the results, arguing that by not being selected for review it was deprived of the chance to possibly earn revocation by demonstrating zero or de minimis margins. However, the court ruled that because it withdrew its request for review when the 4 mandatory respondents were selected (in an attempt to avoid being assigned the “all others” rate), Asahi failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and therefore could not challenge the review results. See ITT’s Online Archives or 11/22/10 news, 10112204, for BP summary of similar court decision on the prior year’s review) (Slip Op. 11-24, dated 03/01/11)

In Chubb Insurance Company of Europe S.A., v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.¹, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Central District of California ruled that “third party” suits seeking indemnification² and contribution (compensation) in connection with international air cargo shipments are rights to recourse and therefore, are not subject to the Montreal Convention's two-year statute of limitations on the right to damages.