Following the final results of the January-December 2006 countervailing duty administrative review of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India, the Court of International Trade instructed the International Trade Administration, among other remand orders, to reassess its determination that Essar Steel Ltd. had benefited from a Chhattisgarh State Industrial Policy since, in other review periods, the agency had found the policy did not benefit the company. For its remand redetermination, the ITA changed its conclusion, finding no benefit. Domestic manufacturers challenged the redetermination, but the court upheld the ITA’s altered position. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 01/01/10 news, 10010550, for BP summary of the decision that remanded the issue to ITA.) (Slip Op. 11-11, dated 01/28/11)
Court of International Trade
The United States Court of International Trade is a federal court which has national jurisdiction over civil actions regarding the customs and international trade laws of the United States. The Court was established under Article III of the Constitution by the Customs Courts Act of 1980. The Court consists of nine judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is located in New York City. The Court has jurisdiction throughout the United States and has exclusive jurisdictional authority to decide civil action pertaining to international trade against the United States or entities representing the United States.
On January 24, 2011 in Xerox Corporation v. U.S., the Court of International Trade remanded back to U.S. Customs and Border Protection a government procurement final determination on certain recycled laser toner printer cartridges and ordered CBP to explicitly identify the country of origin or state why it cannot be determined.
The International Trade Administration is amending a final antidumping duty scope ruling regarding carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China (A-570-814) to exclude fittings used only in structural applications, pursuant to a court ruling.
In Trumpf Medical Systems, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of International Trade granted in part Trumpf’s claims and ordered that U.S. Customs and Border Protection reliquidate entries of certain imported surgical light systems under HTS subheading 9018.19.95, as other electro-medical instruments, at a rate of duty-free. CIT also ordered the reliquidation of certain related light system components.
Following the August 2005 -- July 2006 AD administrative review of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (“CORE products”) from Korea, the Court of International Trade granted the ITA’s voluntary remand to reconsider its model-matching method for comparing U.S. sales to home market sales. In its remand determination, the ITA decided not to revise its method, but the court ruled that comparing U.S. sales of painted CORE products to home market sales of both painted and laminated products violated the statutory requirement of comparing products “identical in physical characteristics,” and remanded the case back to the ITA again. (CIT Slip Op. 11-3, decided January 11, 2011)
On remand from an earlier Court of International Trade decision, the ITA made a redetermination excluding from the scope of the AD order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China such products that are imported and used only in architectural or structural applications. Importer King Supply Co., having won its exclusion, nevertheless sued again, in order to further clarify the agency’s new scope ruling, but the court ruled that the redetermination ruling is clear, and rejected King’s request for further remand proceedings. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 10/05/10 news, 10100521, for BP summary of CIT remand ruling.) (CIT Slip Op. 11-2, dated January 6, 2011)
iScholar, Inc., an American importer affected by an adverse AD duty rate in the September 2007 - August 2008 AD review of certain lined paper products from India, brought suit against the ITA for its determination that an uncooperative Indian mandatory respondent merited an adverse rate of 72.03%, selected from among the individual transactions of the other mandatory respondent (whose overall rate was only 1.34%). Because Blue Bird (India) Ltd. ceased responding to the agency’s questionnaires in mid-review and the rate chosen by the ITA was based on a sale “within the mainstream” of the cooperating respondent’s sales, the Court of International Trade upheld the agency’s determination. (CIT Slip Op. 11-4, dated January 13, 2011)
The Court of International Trade (CIT) made the following antidumping duty law determinations in the second half of December 2010.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection1 has posted a document providing the five current bond formulas for Activity Code 1 (Importer/Broker) continuous bonds, including those for imports subject to antidumping (AD) and countervailing (CV) duties, and for bonds posted by importers that have unpaid bills or delinquent accounts.
The International Trade Administration is amending its final antidumping duty determination and order on 1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP) from China (A-570-934) to reduce the estimated AD duty rate for one company.