The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 23 affirmed a lower court ruling against the Commerce Department’s new strict policies for ending antidumping and countervailing duty reviews of foreign exporters. Agreeing with a Court of International Trade Decision issued in 2015, the CAFC held that Commerce improperly changed a rule, without the required notice-and-comment, when it said in a 2011 guidance document that it would only grant late withdrawals of requests for review in “extraordinary circumstances.” The underlying regulation directs Commerce to grant requests after the deadline when “reasonable.” An importer of glycine from China had challenged the policy when Commerce refused to end a review of its supplier, Baoding Mantong, even though both Baoding Mantong and the domestic petitioner had withdrawn their requests for the Chinese company’s review. Baoding Mantong’s withdrawal was late, and the company subsequently declined to participate in the review, so Commerce assigned it a penalty AD rate of more than 400 percent. Commerce has since amended the final results of the review under CIT order to retroactively end the review of Baoding Mantong without assigning it a new AD rate.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Jan. 8-12 in case they were missed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 4 affirmed a lower court decision that found an importer of aluminum extrusions from China owes a 374.15% countervailing duty assessment, despite the applicable rate falling precipitously to 7.37% in subsequent litigation. Capella Sales & Services should have joined the court challenge, filed its own lawsuit or requested an administrative review if it wanted to benefit from the lower rate, the appeals court said. It did not, so Capella owes assessments at the cash deposit rate in effect at time of entry, CAFC said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 5 affirmed a lower court ruling on the applicability of special duty provisions for goods returned after repairs or alterations in Canada or Mexico, though it declined to rule as broadly as the Court of International Trade did in its 2016 decision. The Federal Circuit agreed that cargo vans exported by Pleasure Way for conversion into motor homes don’t qualify for classification in subheading 9802.00.50 of the tariff schedule because the exported and imported articles are commercially different, but declined to weigh in on whether they share the same “essential characteristics” or “intended use.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with a Court of International Trade decision on the classification of a chemical as a derivative of an amide despite the lack of a transformation process, the CAFC said in a Dec. 21 ruling. CIT previously ruled that the chemical, imported by Chemtall, is not an amide because, according to the Explanatory Notes (ENs), amides include only an amide functional group (see 1605260031). The lawsuit hinged on the question of whether the inclusion of a heteroatom within the chemical structure of acrylamide tertiary butyl sulfonic acid (ATBS) means ATBS cannot be considered an amide.
Santa Claus suits imported by Rubies Costume Company are classifiable in the tariff schedule as wearing apparel, not festive articles, the Court of International Trade said in an Oct. 31 decision. Though they may be festive articles because they are used only during the Christmas season, the Santa Claus suits are “fancy dress” excluded from duty free classification in Chapter 95 because they are durable items that will survive multiple wearings and cleanings, CIT said.
No new lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 21-27, nor were any appeals of Court of International Trade decisions filed that week at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to the CIT and CAFC Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) filing databases.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for July 17-21 in case they were missed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a Court of International Trade ruling in a July 18 decision on the classification of parts made for the Container Store’s "elfa" modular storage furniture system. The CAFC disagreed with the CIT's finding from last year that the "top tracks and hanging standards" are classifiable as parts of general use, not parts of furniture (see 1601220024). CIT didn't give enough consideration to an explanatory note for heading 8302, which explains that the scope of heading 8302 doesn't include goods that form an "essential part of the structure," the CAFC said in its decision (here).
A Commerce Department antidumping duty review of a Chinese exporter of steel nails was valid, even though notification requirements were not met and the Chinese exporter did not defend itself in the review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said on May 30 (here). Affirming a Court of International Trade ruling issued in April 2016 (see 1604250033), the appeals court found Suntec was effectively notified of the administrative review when the initiation notice was published in the Federal Register, even though the domestic manufacturer that requested the review did not serve the request directly on Suntec, as required by regulation.