CBP affirmed a February determination that found substantial evidence of evasion of countervailing duties and antidumping duties on wooden cabinets from China by two importers, after a review of the case, according to a recently released notice.

The U.S.'s "unreasonable delay" in asserting claims seeking to collect antiduming duties on entries of canned mushrooms brought in between 2000 and 2001 warrants dismissal of its case at the Court of International Trade seeking the duties, surety company American Home Assurance Co. (AHAC) argued in an Aug. 1 reply brief. Responding to the court's request for more briefing over AHAC's affirmative defense and claims of prejudice, the surety company said that it has not been able to actually provide significant evidence of actual harm "despite best efforts," but that the case should be decided on statute of limitations grounds (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175).

The Commerce Department cannot deduct Section 232 national security duties from antidumping duty respondent Borusan Mannesman's U.S. price because the duties are remedial, temporary and deducting them would count as a double remedy, making them unlike normal customs duties, the respondent argued. Filing a reply brief Aug. 4 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the respondent said Commerce failed to conduct a "fulsome analysis" of whether the Section 232 duties are more like normal customs duties or to special duties, like Section 201 safeguards, and instead "confined its analysis" to finding distinctions between Section 232 and Section 201 duties. The agency also failed to acknowledge the "legal and constitutional distinction between regular duties imposed by Congress" and special duties imposed by the president (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2097).

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 4 order denied defendant Greenlight Organic and Parambir Singh Aulakh's motion for summary judgment over the date that the U.S. discovered customs fraud for the purpose of finding whether the statute of limitations had run out. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that the undisputed facts don't back any of three dates floated by the defendants as the date that the U.S. first received evidence of Greenlight's double invoicing scheme. In the scheme, Greenlight is accused of fraudulently misclassifying its Vietnam-origin knit garments.

The International Trade Commission erred in its determination that mattress imports injured the domestic industry and again when it argued in its defense at the Court of International Trade, importer CVB said in an August 1 brief at the Court of International Trade (CVB v. United States, CIT #21-00288).

The U.S., in a July 28 brief at the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, argued oral argument is needed in a case over alleged Jones Act penalties committed by shipping companies Kloosterboer International Forwarding and Alaska Reefer Management. The U.S. pushed back against KIF and ARM's opposition to oral argument, arguing that the meeting is needed to "fully vet the complex issues in this case" and fully inform the court about the record (Kloosterboer International Forwarding v. United States, D. Alaska #3:21-00198).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Aug. 8 opinion held that tradeable tax credits fall within the regulatory definition of a "price adjustment," meaning the Commerce Department properly deducted the credits from respondent LDC Argentina's export price. Judges Kimberly Moore, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes also ruled that Commerce's use of an international market price for soybeans in its constructed value calculation for biodiesel does not count as a double remedy, even though the U.S. imposed countervailing duties on Argentine soybeans.

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

CBP, in closely linked cases, determined that there is substantial evidence that importers Starille, Nutrawave and Newtrend USA evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on glycine from China (EAPA Consolidated Case No. 7647), while there was a lack of substantial evidence that the same importers evaded an AD order on glycine from Thailand (EAPA Consolidated Case No. 7663).

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative often found itself weighing the possible harm to U.S. consumers from the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs against the need to give the duties enough teeth to curb China’s allegedly unfair trade practices, the agency said in its 90-page “remand determination,” filed Aug. 1 at the Court of International Trade (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052). Submitting its bid to ease the court's concerns over modifications made to the third and fourth tariff waves, USTR provided its justifications for removing various goods from the tariff lists ranging from critical minerals to seafood products.