The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 6 affirmed a lower court ruling on the classification of battery-powered candles in heading 9405 as lamps and lighting fittings. CAFC largely agreed with the Court of International Trade's finding in a Gerson Company challenge to CBP's classification of the candles after liquidation in heading 9405 with a 3.9 percent duty rate during 2009 and 2010 (see 1708030011). Gerson appealed CIT's ruling over what the company said were errors in the court's analysis.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 15 ruled against a challenge to Section 201 safeguard duties on solar cells, affirming a recent Court of International Trade decision not to put the duties on hold by way of an injunction. Like CIT did in a “careful and thorough opinion” issued in March (see 1803060027), the Federal Circuit found Silfab, a U.S. importer, and two Canadian exporters, Heliene and Canadian Solar, are not likely to succeed in their challenge because President Donald Trump acted within his authority when he issued the Section 201 safeguards. Among other things, the appeals court found that disagreement at the International Trade Commission and the lack of a unified recommendation on remedy doesn’t mean Trump couldn’t set the tariffs anyway, because the ITC had already found injury, CAFC said. The president also had the authority to set duties on Canada despite the lack of an ITC recommendation to do so, CAFC said.
An importer of solar cells can’t challenge CBP’s decision to require antidumping and countervailing duty cash deposits without a scope ruling in hand, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said June 14. Reversing an October 2016 decision from the Court of International Trade (see 1610200024), CAFC held the trade court did not have jurisdiction to hear a challenge of CBP’s allegedly illegitimate decision to require cash deposits because Commerce had not yet issued a scope ruling on whether Sunpreme’s hybrid solar cells were included under the scope of AD/CVD orders on solar cells from China.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for May 21-25 in case they were missed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued two decisions in recent days upholding a broader coverage of antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, striking down a set of Court of International Trade opinions that found two Commerce Department scope rulings too expansive.
The Commerce Department may use a substantial transformation analysis to determine the country of origin of a given product in scope rulings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in an April 25 decision. Vacating a holding of the Court of International Trade, the Federal Circuit found Commerce did not err when it looked into whether Chinese intermediate goods were transformed into Indonesian finished goods when determining whether to apply antidumping duties on oil country tubular goods from China.
Roasted sunflower seeds imported by Well Luck are classifiable in the tariff schedule as prepared foods, not in a subheading specifically for sunflower seeds, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said as it affirmed a lower court ruling, albeit with different reasoning. Though the seeds are classifiable in both subheadings, the subheading for prepared foods is more specific because it involves additional processing and is more difficult to satisfy, the Federal Circuit said.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for April 2-6 in case they were missed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 2 affirmed a lower court ruling that dinnerware decorated with Christmas or Thanksgiving themes are not classifiable in a special duty-free subheading for articles used in religious or cultural rituals. Though it faulted the Court of International Trade’s narrow interpretation of what constitutes a ritual, it still found WWRD’s Christmas and Thanksgiving dinnerware should not be classified alongside items with more specific purposes like menorahs and communion cups.
Instructions not to assess antidumping duties on “unliquidated” entries also apply to entries that have been liquidated but not finalized because they are still protestable, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a March 30 decision. Overturning a Court of International Trade ruling from 2016 (see 1610250042), the Federal Circuit held that the Commerce Department’s revocation of antidumping duties on German steel may apply to several of ThyssenKrupp’s entries that had already been liquidated by the time the revocation was announced.