The Commerce Department should not have considered "(k)(1)" materials over the plain meaning of the scope of an antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China in finding that certain flanges fall outside of the ADD order, defendant-intervenor ASC Engineered Solutions said in Jan. 20 comments at the Court of International Trade. Since Commerce found that Crane Resistoflex's flanges "clearly fall within the plain language of the scope," that should have been the end of the case. Instead, Commerce considered the (k)(1) materials and illegally excluded Crane's flanges, the brief said (MCC Holdings dba Crane Resistoflex v. U.S., CIT #18-00248).
The COVID-19 pandemic did not give the Commerce Department cover to ignore its statutory obligation to conduct on-site verification in antidumping duty proceedings, the plaintiffs in an ADD case told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 19 brief. Responding to the Department of Justice's defense of its decision to send an additional questionnaire instead of conducting on-site verification, the plaintiffs, led by Ellwood City Forge Company, said that DOJ's position is not entitled to Chevron deference and that the pandemic did not justify violating the statute (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00077).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The United States will not participate in the appeal over whether the law permits expedited countervailing duty reviews, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 19 letter. In the case, originally brought by the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, the Court of International Trade said that there was no legal authority for such reviews (see 2108190002). The decision was then appealed by the Canadian government, among other parties, which argued that the trade court improperly applied Chevron deference to the Commerce Department when it found that two different sections of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act didn't give Commerce the legal authority to carry out expedited reviews (see 2112280025) (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #19-00122).
Just because Section 232 tariffs are placed in Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, this doesn't make them remedial tariffs, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 14 brief. The tariffs also aren't temporary, don't count as a double remedy and can be deducted from an antidumping duty respondent's export price, the brief said (Borusan Mannesman Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2097).
The Court of International Trade improperly applied the "dual burden of proof" when it denied Meyer Corp. "first sale" valuation on its imports of cookware, Meyer told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 10 reply brief. The dual burden of proof practice was previously eliminated, so CIT improperly applied this standard when it denied Meyer first sale but sustained CBP's valuation of the imports based on their second sale rate, Meyer said (Meyer Corporation v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1932). "Despite its prodigious length (120 pages), the CIT's opinion consists mainly of a recitation of the parties' proposed post-trial findings and contains very little by way of legal analysis," the company said.
An importer needs to file a protest to claim jurisdiction at the Court of International Trade over protestable CBP decisions, and that includes CBP's assessment of Section 301 tariffs on goods subsequently granted a tariff exclusion, the Department of Justice said in a Jan. 18 brief. DOJ urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to uphold CIT's decision dismissing a lawsuit from ARP Materials and Harrison Steel seeking refunds of the duties, arguing CIT's "residual" jurisdiction under Section 1581(i) does not apply, since the plaintiff-appellants had adequate notice of CBP's actions and actually received Section 301 refunds for some of their entries (see 2109280061) (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
Kambiz Attar Kashani, a citizen of both the U.S. and Iran, has been charged with conspiring to illegally export U.S. goods, technology and services to the Iranian government, and others, in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York said. A complaint was unsealed in the district court revealing the nature of the charges against Kashani and the extent of his alleged malfeasance. According to the complaint, Kashani conspired to ship goods, including two subscriptions to proprietary computer software, multiple fixed attenuators, six power supplies and various storage systems, to the Central Bank of Iran -- an entity recognized by the Treasury Department as an agency of the Iranian government and thus classified as a Specially Designated National. The complaint said that CBI provided assistance to "Lebanese Hizballah, a terrorist organization, and to the Qods Force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps." Kashani allegedly arranged for the transshipping schemes while acting as the principal for two United Arab Emirates front companies. The defendant used the companies to procure electronic goods and technology from various U.S. technology companies for the CBI without obtaining the proper Office of Foreign Asset Control licenses, the U.S. Attorney's Office said.
The Commerce Department reasonably hit countervailing duty respondent Uttam Galva Steels Limited with adverse facts available over its failure to reveal its affiliation with a cross-owned producer of the subject merchandise, Lloyds Steel Industries Limited, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 14 reply brief. Since Uttam Galva only admitted to affiliation with LSIL after prodding from Commerce, the respondent failed to have cooperated to the best of its ability, justifying the use of AFA, DOJ said (Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2119).
The Department of Justice backed the Commerce Department's decision to hit antidumping duty review respondent Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group with the China-wide dumping rate despite its full cooperation in the review, in a Jan. 14 brief at the Court of International Trade. DOJ said that after looking at Jinqiao Flooring's ownership makeup, the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of government control and that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld Commerce's bid to use an adverse facts available rate for a separate rate respondent despite its full cooperation (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group v. U.S. , CIT #18-00191).