The Court of International Trade properly required Commerce to drop its reliance on an Enforce and Protect Act case to reject third-country sales in an antidumping duty review, antidumping duty respondent Z.A. Sea Foods (ZASF) said in a June 5 response brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Z.A. Sea Foods v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 2023-1469).
Ben Perkins
Ben Perkins, Assistant Editor, is a reporter with International Trade Today and its sister publications, Trade Law Daily and Export Compliance Daily, where he covers sanctions, court rulings, and other international trade issues. He previously worked as a trade analyst for a Washington D.C. advisory firm. Ben holds a B.A. in English from the University of New Hampshire and an M.A. in International Relations from American University. Ben joined the staff of Warren Communications News in 2022.
CBP found an article description for aircraft parts at the 10-digit level in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule begins with "other" and correctly denied a claim for unused substitution drawback, DOJ said in a June 2 cross motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade. The case concerns the placement of the word "other" in the superior text between the 8-digit HTS subheading and the 10-digit statistical reporting number. The court's ruling could shake up the industry and could change how CBP interprets what HTS numbers are eligible or not for this type of drawback (see 2303270031) (Spirit Aerosystems v. U.S., CIT # 20-00094).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated June 2 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated June 1 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The Commerce Department correctly followed a Court of International Trade remand order when it declined to use a mistakenly chosen respondent's individually calculated rate in its calculation of the non-selected respondents rate, instead basing the non-selected rate on the individual rate for a single mandatory respondent, DOJ said in its May 31 remand comments at the Court of International Trade (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry v. U.S., CIT # 20-03885).
The Commerce Department correctly continued to find that usage rights at the Port of Incheon granted to Hyundai Steel by the Korean government were countervailable but did not require a less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) analysis, DOJ said alongside defendant-intervenors Nucor, SSAB and Steel Dynamics in separate remand comments submitted to the Court of International Trade on June 1 (Hyundai Steel Company v. U.S., CIT # 21-00536).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Commerce Department correctly determined that Korean exporter SeAH Steel failed to cooperate fully in a countervailing duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Korea because SeAH waited until verification to provide information that should have been submitted in response to an initial questionnaire, a group of defendant-intervenors led by Borusan Mannesmann Pipe said in their May 30 response brief. Because SeAH failed to act to the best of its ability, Commerce's application of adverse facts available was warranted, Borusan said (SeAH Steel v. U.S., CIT # 22-00338).
Imported glass mosaic tiles from China should have been granted Section 301 tariff exclusions due to their size, said importer Anatolia Tile & Stone in a May 31 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Anatolia is challenging CBP's denial of 42 protests, which sought to remove the 25% duty assigned by CBP at liquidation. The company asked the court to order CBP to reliquidate the entries and refund any excess duties paid with interest (Anatolia Tile & Stone v. U.S., CIT # 21-00245).