Two companies that arrange for the shipment of goods with vessel operating carriers, Shine Shipping and Shine International (Shine), will no longer be able to import, export, transport, offer for sale, sell or assist any such activity, for any goods bearing Nike trademarks, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said. Wrapping up a trademark infringement case, the district court released the terms of the stipulated permanent injunction and final order against Shine, including orders to verify every shipment to the U.S. with either the foreign shipper, importer or foreign freight forwarder (Nike v. B&H Customs Services, S.D.N.Y. #20-01214).
The Court of International Trade should rehear its decision on whether a Warehousing Agreement between two related companies sufficed as a lease or similar use agreement since it failed to address one of the U.S.'s arguments that the two entities are not separate but merely a single entity, DOJ argued in an April 20 motion for rehearing (SGS Sports v. United States, CIT #18-00128).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department reversed course on 45 Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion bids, granting the requests on remand at the Court of International Trade. Submitting the results of its voluntary remand request in an April 18 submission, Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security granted importer Mirror Metals' exclusion requests, finding that the bids should be granted after looking at whether the relevant steel article could be made at a sufficient level in the U.S. (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT #21-00144).
The Court of International Trade sent back parts of and upheld one element of the Commerce Department's final results of the 2017-2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded line pipe from South Korea, in an April 19 opinion. Judge Claire Kelly sent back Commerce's particular market situation determination and adjustment methodology, PMS adjustment to respondent SeAH Steel Corp.'s home market sales for the sales-below-cost test, denial of a constructed export price (CEP) offset for SeAH, reallocation of respondent NEXTEEL Co.'s suspended loss and non-prime product costs, and separate rate calculation. The judge sustained, however, Commerce's decision to cap SeAH's freight revenue.
The Commerce Department cannot use an antidumping evasion finding to reject AD review respondent Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited's (ZASF) Vietnamese data when calculating normal value, the Court of International Trade said in an April 19 opinion. Since ZASF is not mentioned in the Enforce and Protect Act investigation cited by Commerce as the basis for rejecting the Vietnamese data, it is not clear how the agency decided that some of ZASF's Vietnamese sales ultimately wound up in the U.S., Judge Gary Katzmann said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department properly decided not to individually investigate Siemens Energy's Spanish subsidiary Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy (SGRE) in an antidumping duty investigation, DOJ and AD petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition argued in two reply briefs at the Court of International Trade. DOJ said that the law is silent over how Commerce must proceed when all the initially picked respondents withdraw from the investigation, while the WTTC argued that it's not uncommon for Commerce to replace a mandatory respondent late in an investigation (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. United States, CIT #21-00449).
The Commerce Department and the Court of International Trade properly held that China Custom Manufacturing's solar panel mounts do not qualify for the finished goods exclusion from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, DOJ argued in an April 18 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CCM, along with importer Greentec Engineering, ask Commerce to apply an outdated interpretation of the exclusion that doesn't consider key precedent from the Federal Circuit, the U.S. said (China Custom Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1345).
The Commerce Department continued to rely on adverse facts available in a countervailing duty case on remand at the Court of International Trade, holding that respondent Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi failed to act to the best of its ability when providing certain information about a Turkish government subsidiary. While it dropped AFA over Celik Halat's Section III of the initial CVD questionnaire, as instructed by the court, the agency still used AFA over Celik Halat's failure to respond to the Standard Questions Appendix of the Tax Program Appendix for the subsidy (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi A.S. v. U.S., CIT #21-00050).