The Court of International Trade cannot set aside case law finding that subassemblies do not qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion in antidumping and countervailing duty order scope rulings, Judge Stephen Vaden said in a Dec. 6 opinion. Siding with the Commerce Department over plaintiffs China Customs Manufacturing and Greentec Engineering, the court said the plaintiffs' solar roof mountings fall within the scope of the AD/CVD orders on aluminum extrusion from China.
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Surety company International Bond & Marine is responsible for over $730,000 in unpaid duties resulting from a diamond jewelry company's fraudulent import scheme, the Department of Justice alleged in a Dec. 6 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade. Due to the terms of the bond agreement between International Bond and the jewelry company, Anaya Gems, the surety must cover the unpaid duties that accrued as a result of Anaya Gems' efforts to undervalue its jewelry shipments and underpay customs duties owed, DOJ said (United States v. International Bond & Marine, Ltd., CIT #21-00611).
U.S. Steel was again denied the right to intervene in a Section 232 exclusion denial challenge at the Court of International Trade, with the court holding that the Pennsylvania steel company did not have a legally protectable interest in the case. According to the Dec. 3 opinion, U.S. Steel cannot intervene in the case since it won't be directly affected by the case's outcome. Judge Claire Kelly said that any harm that U.S. Steel would experience as a result of the court granting a Section 232 exclusion would be indirect since the company has no right to the sale of the covered products.
The Commerce Department has given no reason why South Korean steel company SeAH Steel Corp. should be penalized via a delayed remand submission because "Commerce has chosen to procrastinate" on a delayed remand in another case, SeAH told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 2 brief (SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-00150).
The International Trade Commission should revoke the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from Canada, China, India and Oman due to the U.S. industry already running at full capacity and undertaking market distorting practices, PET resin consumers will tell the ITC during a sunset review of the orders. The PET resin consumers, including members of the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), note the inflationary effect the AD/CVD orders on PET resin have on their prices and mark the orders as one of the factors contributing to unsustainable price hikes amid shortages in one of bottled water's essential inputs.
The Commerce Department properly gave a non-mandatory respondent a non-de minimis countervailing duty rate in a CVD administrative review despite the fact that both of the actual mandatory respondents received de minimis rates, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 2 opinion. Judge Claire Kelly held that the "expected method" for calculating duties for non-mandatory respondents only applies in the antidumping duty context, and not to CV duty proceedings.
The Department of Justice's insistence on defending the Commerce Department's position regarding China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in countervailing duty investigations is "mystifying" seeing as it refuses to appeal the issue after multiple defeats at the Court of International Trade, respondent Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings Co. said in a Nov. 30 brief (Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings v. U.S., CIT #21-00166).
The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security is violating Belgian shipping company Exmar Marine's Fourth and Fifth amendment rights by blocking its ability to sell an aircraft it owns, Exmar alleged in a Dec. 1 complaint. Arguing its case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Exmar said BIS has no legal authority to stop the sale of the aircraft and that such action to do so cuts against constitutional protections against unreasonable seizure and violations of due process (Exmar Marine, NV v. Bureau of Industry and Security, D.C. Cir. #21-3141).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.