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).
toSearch Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "foreign direct product rule").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., BIS).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., BIS +Huawei).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., China -tariff).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls" or "entity list" instead of "entity listing").
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).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will conduct all scheduled arguments for the February 2022 session by videoconference, the court said in a Jan. 18 notice. However, only arguing counsel will have access to the video call, while the general public may only livestream the argument's audio. No motions for access beyond arguing counsel will be entertained, the court said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Department of Justice will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a November 2021 Court of International Trade decision striking down the Trump administration's withdrawal of a tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels, according to a Jan. 14 notice of appeal. In the opinion, the trade court struck down the exclusion rescission since the law only permits trade liberalizing alterations to the existing safeguard measures (see 2111160032) (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, CIT #20-03941).
The Court of International Trade should sustain the International Trade Commission's critical circumstances finding on small vertical shaft engines from China, Briggs & Stratton said in a Jan. 14 brief. Responding to plaintiff MTD Products, which argued that COVID-19 manufacturing complications distorted both the timing and the volume of imports over the post-petition period (see 2106010058), Briggs & Stratton said that the ITC took into account the timing and volume of the imports and any rapid upticks in inventories of the imports when making its decision (MTD Products Inc v. United States, CIT #21-00264).