The Commerce Department wrongly denied Section 232 exclusion requests for tin mill products despite a lack of domestic supply, Seneca Foods Corporation said in its Feb. 28 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The motion challenges eight decisions by Commerce denying Seneca’s requests for exclusions from Section 232 tariffs for tin mill products consisting of steel (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).
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.
A case involving the appraisal and correct tariff payments on six large stamping presses for automobile manufacturing has concluded in mediation, with all issues settled, according to a Feb 28 mediation report (Aida-America v. U.S., CIT # 18-00215).
The Court of International Trade should grant the government's motion to reconsider its decision to send back the Commerce Department's use of a transaction-specific margin for an adverse facts available rate it assigned to an antidumping duty respondent, the American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring (AMMWF) argued in a Feb. 27 response (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00144).
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative erred when it decided not to reinstate a Section 301 tariff exclusion on water coolers even though the only party in opposition to the exclusion subsequently withdrew its comments, DS Services of America said in its Feb. 27 filing on the remand results at the Court of International Trade (DS Services of America v. United States, CIT # 22-00157).
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 unlawfully failed to adjust non-selected companies' cash deposit and assessment rates to account for export subsidy offsets in an antidumping duty review, an association of Indian producers and exports of quartz surface products said in a Feb. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Federation of Indian Quartz Surface Industry v. U.S., CIT # 23-00026).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Feb. 24 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):
Meyer Corporation will appeal a Court of International Trade decision (see 2302090053) denying the use of first sale on Meyer's cookware imports, the company said in a notice. The case concerns first sale treatment of sets of imported pots and pans from a Thai producer and Chinese middleman related to Meyer (Meyer Corporation v. United States, CIT # 13-00154).
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 in Feb. 23 remand results reversed course "under respectful protest" on a 26.5% subsidy rate it calculated for land provision by Indian national authorities in its countervailing duty investigation on granular polytetrafluorethylene resin from India (Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00120).