Court of International Trade

The Court of International Trade granted stays in six proceedings pending resolution of the appeal in the Union Steel v. U.S. case regarding zeroing in administrative reviews. The six proceedings challenge the International Trade Administration’s use of zeroing in the 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2008-09 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the U.K. CIT said the AD administrative reviews concern different antidumping duty orders and administrative reviews than are involved in the Union Steel case, but both cases raise the same general issue of the permissibility under current law of the ITA’s application of the zeroing methodology in an administrative review.

The Court of International Trade dismissed Rack Room Shoes’ request for rehearing of its constitutionality challenge of certain tariff provisions of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) on the grounds that the tariffs unconstitutionally discriminate by gender and age.

The Court of International Trade remanded the final results of the 2008-09 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip from China (A-570-924) for the International Trade Administration to reconsider surrogate values for certain inputs and to correct a clerical error. Specifically, CIT granted ITA’s request for a voluntary remand to address respondents Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd. and Shaxoing Xiangyu Green Packing Co., Ltd.’s arguments regarding the surrogate value for the labor input, and also to correct a clerical error in Green’s per-unit water and electricity costs. Additionally, CIT agreed with respondents’ arguments and remanded the ITA’s use of a simple average of two HTS numbers (3907.60.20 and 3907.60.10) to obtain Indian value data for the ITA’s surrogate value for PET chips, the primary input for PET film.

The Court of International Trade remanded part of the International Trade Administration’s final results of the 2008-09 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain orange juice from Brazil (A-351-840), in order for the ITA to reconsider its decision to include currency translation when calculating Brazilian plaintiff Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria and Agricultura’s constructed value, and to reconsider its decision to apply zeroing methodology. However, CIT rejected Fischer’s other challenges of the ITA’s constructed value corporation.

The International Trade Commission’s decision to revoke the antidumping duty order on magnesium metal from Russia was upheld by the Court of International Trade. Plaintiff US Magnesium LLC challenged the ITC’s negative injury determination in its 2010 sunset review of the AD order with respect to its decision not to conduct its injury determination based on the combined (“cumulated”) imports of magnesium from Russia and China, as well as its determination to revoke the AD order with respect to Russia. CIT said the ITC’s decision not to combine Russian and Chinese imports, as well as its decision to revoke the AD order, were both supported by substantial evidence, including, among other things, the decline of the Russian magnesium industry and the different uses for Russian and Chinese magnesium.

The Court of International Trade affirmed the International Trade Administration’s voluntary remand redetermination of the final results of the 2007-08 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam (A-552-802). The ITA had requested the voluntary remand to correct the methodology it used to determine the AD rate for 16 non-individually selected separate rate respondents, pursuant to earlier CIT rulings against this methodology with respect to the 2006-07 review of the same AD order.

The Court of International Trade remanded for further redetermination the final results of the International Trade Administration’s 2007-08 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea (A-580-816). In this consolidated action, four plaintiffs, Korean exporters Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., and Hyundai HYSCO, as well as U.S. Steel, a member of the U.S. domestic industry, challenged the ITA’s final results. Additionally, the ITA requested a voluntary remand with respect to four claims.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection said it will cancel a continuous bond where the liability was calculated pursuant to enhanced bonding requirements (EBR bond) upon its acceptance of a qualified superseding (replacement) bond application for all importers who were not litigants in any of the National Fisheries Institute, Inc. (NFI) v. CBP court cases at the Court of International Trade.

The Court of International Trade granted the U.S. government’s renewed motion for default judgment against Country Flavor Corp. of $617,562.00 as a civil penalty for negligence, as well as $28,984.75 for lost revenue, for unpaid antidumping duties on 13 entries negligently misidentified by Country Flavor, that were later found to be subject to the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam (A-552-801). CIT’s ruling followed its denial of the government’s motion for default judgment in March 2012 due to discrepancies and omissions in the Government’s submissions. While CIT granted the government’s renewed motion because it submitted additional evidence to support and correct its contentions, it excoriated the government for its errors, and said such errors undermine the credibility of the involved individuals as well as CIT’s general ability to rely on government representations.

In the May 16, 2012 issue of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bulletin (Vol. 46, No. 21), CBP published notice that it is withdrawing its proposed revocation of a ruling on plastic recorder musical instruments due to its receipt of adverse comment. CBP also published a notice that it is withdrawing its proposed modification of a ruling on Acetyl L-Carnitine Hydrochloride, as its classification is being litigated.