Court of International Trade

The International Trade Administration’s determination not to apply Adverse Facts Available (AFA) to Plaintiff Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd. (TMI) in the final results of its 2008-09 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from China (A-570-832), despite knowledge that TMI had submitted falsified documentation to the ITA, was remanded to the ITA by the Court of International Trade for further proceedings. CIT agreed with Defendant-Intervenor U.S. Magnesium’s arguments, and said the ITA’s final results did not provide an adequate basis for its decision.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection must be aware of the limits of what customs brokers can provide to CBP, though there are several ways brokers can work with CBP to further the importing process, according to written testimony from Darrell Sekin, president of the National Customs Brokers and Forwards Association of America. Sekin is scheduled to testify May 17 before the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee during a hearing on Supporting Economic Growth and Job Creation through Customs Trade Modernization, Facilitation, and Enforcement.

The Court of International Trade denied a motion by patent-holder PPC to participate as amicus curiae in an action challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s denial of plaintiff Corning Gilbert Inc.’s protests relating to CBP’s exclusion of its coaxial cable connectors pursuant to an International Trade Commission general exclusion order. CIT said participation in actions challenging the denial of protests is generally limited to the importer and the government, and the broad scope of PPC’s requested involvement would be akin to granting a motion to intervene, which is statutorily barred by 28 USC 2631(j)(1)(a).

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted petitions for a rehearing of GPX International Tire Corp. v. United States, in which CAFC ruled in December 2011 that countervailing duties may not be imposed on goods from China or other non-market economies (NME), in light of the new law upholding the application of CV duties to NME countries. CAFC remanded the case to the Court of International Trade to determine the legislation's constitutionality, in particular that of a "special rule" created by varying effective dates in the provision that, in this case,and according to CAFC "perhaps a few others," allow both antidumping and CV duties to be imposed without providing a mechanism to account for potential double counting.

The Court of International Trade denied Thai plaintiff KYD Inc.’s motion for reconsideration of CIT’s January 2012 affirmance of the International Trade Administration’s second remand redetermination of the 2006-07 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand (A-579-821). KYD said CIT did not address its argument in the January 2012 proceedings that the 94.62% Adverse Facts Available (AFA) rate assigned to KYD by the second remand redetermination and affirmed by CIT violated the excessive fines and forfeitures clause of the 8th Amendment.

The Court of International Trade granted domestic plaintiff Home Products International, Inc.’s (HPI) motion for reconsideration of its January 2012 ruling that sustained part of the final results of the International Trade Administration’s 2007-08 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof (A-570-888). CIT conceded that it “did not fully grasp HPI’s argument” against the ITA’s decision to value respondent Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.’s carton input using market economy prices. After fully understanding HPI’s argument, CIT remanded the determination to the ITA for further explanation.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Court of International Trade’s affirmance of the International Trade Administration’s remand redetermination, which the ITA completed under protest, of its final results of its 2007 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India (C-533-821). CAFC said the CIT improperly exceeded its authority by requiring the ITA to reopen and supplement the record to admit untimely filed documentation when the Indian respondent and plaintiff, Essar Steel Limited, did not cooperate to the best of its ability.

A general challenge of the International Trade Administration’s alleged failure to require explanations from petitioners for review requests and withdrawals of review requests in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings was dismissed by the Court of International Trade because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Court of International Trade found that there is no regulation, statute, or practice establishing a time limit for interested party submissions that rebut information that the International Trade Administration places on the record, and consequently remanded the ITA's decision to reject as untimely plaintiffs’ rebuttal of data that the ITA had placed on the record in a new shipper review of honey from China (A-570-863).

The Court of International Trade affirmed a voluntary remand by the International Trade Administration on the issue of fraud by plaintiff Tianjin Magnesium International, a respondent in the 2006-07 administrative review of an antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from China (A-570-832). CIT also affirmed the ITA’s decision to apply Adverse Facts Available (AFA) in determining Tianjin’s rate as a result of that fraud.