The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Katana Racing Could Not Revoke of Statute of Limitations, US Tells CAFC in Unpaid Duty Case
The Court of International Trade was wrong to dismiss the government's case against importer Katana Racing seeking to collect over $5.7 million in unpaid duties due to an expired statute of limitations, the U.S. argued in its Sept. 13 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government's suit was in fact timely filed since Katana could not revoke its waiver of the statute of limitations, the brief said. The U.S. said no law backs the finding that such a waiver could be revoked and stop the government from filing suit for unpaid duties, and that the trade court's ruling "leads to absurd results" (U.S. v. Katana Racing, Fed. Cir. #22-1832).
The Commerce Department properly found that a particular EU subsidy to Spanish olive growers was de facto specific, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 14 opinion. After previously remanding the case twice, Judge Gary Katzmann this time bought Commerce's rationale for its de facto specificity finding, along with the agency's conclusion that demand for ripe olives -- the subject merchandise -- was substantially dependent on the demand for certain raw olive varietals.
The Court of International Trade, in a departure from a string of past rulings, said in a Sept. 13 opinion that the Commerce Department properly used adverse facts available over China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty case. Judge M. Miller Baker ruled that Commerce "reasonably explained" why it needed key information from the Chinese government, which wasn't provided, to determine whether the CVD respondents and their U.S. customers used the EBCP. Otherwise, the attempt at verification "amounted to 'looking for a needle in a haystack with the added uncertainty that Commerce might not even be able to identify the needle when it was found,'" the judge said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiffs Reserve Right to Oppose US' Inadvertent Liquidations in Solar Panel Tariff Exclusion Case
Plaintiffs in a case challenging President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels reserved all their rights to the extent that the plaintiffs are affected by the U.S.'s inadvertent liquidations of the entries at issue in the action, the plaintiffs said in a Sept. 13 reply brief. The reserved rights include, but are not limited to, "opposing the Government’s actions and legal authority to void liquidations without court approval and without providing specificity that would allow for meaningful comment, the brief said (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, CIT #20-03941).
The Commerce Department legally dropped its reliance on adverse facts available for whether countervailing duty respondent Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings Co. benefitted from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, the Court of International Trade held in a Sept. 13 opinion. Judge Claire Kelly previously sent back Commerce's use of adverse facts available over the Chinese government's unwillingness to submit certain information about its EBCP. The judge said that if the agency wanted to keep using AFA it had to attempt to verify the non-use of the program by looking at evidence from Both-Well and its U.S. customers. Commerce did so on remand, finding that the respondent did not benefit from the EBCP, dropping the company's CVD rate from 25.90% to 15.36%.
The Commerce Department has the authority to address a particular market situation in an antidumping case when normal value is based on home market sales, AD petitioner Wheatland Tube argued in its Sept. 12 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit should overturn the Court of International Trade's ruling, which found that Commerce acted illegally in relying on constructed value when it found that a PMS distorted the cost of production of the home market sales (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1175).
CBP must refund the interest accrued on duty overpayments, phone case importer Otter Products argued in a Sept. 12 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Having had the duty overpayments themselves refunded following prior court action at CIT and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Otter took to the court again to request the interest. The plaintiff argued that since the full payments were never made voluntarily, it is entitled to a refund of the interest accrued on the payments made in connection with prior disclosures, and that the statute unambiguously mandates the maximum penalty for prior disclosures involving negligent conduct (Otter Products v. United States, CIT #22-00033).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: