Jacob Kopnick

CBP said in a customs ruling earlier this month that luxury goods sold between a related European exporter and U.S. importer weren't subject to restrictions on their use that barred the use of the transaction method. In addition, CBP excluded service fees between the companies from the actual price of the goods since the fees didn't pertain to the goods' importation, and the agency found that the relationship between the parties didn't preclude the use of the transaction value method to appraise the value of the goods.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 14 granted importer Diamond Tools Technology's voluntary dismissal of its Enforce and Protect Act appeal. The company took to the appellate court after it won its initial challenge to CBP's finding that it evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese diamond sawblades but lost its application for attorney's fees (see 2307310021) (Diamond Tools Technology v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1882).

The Commerce Department reconsidered on remand its model match hierarchy in the antidumping duty investigation on superabsorbent polymers (SAP) from South Korea, opting to go with the hierarchy made of centrifugal retention capacity "in 6 g/g increments" it used in the investigation's preliminary determination but not in the final decision (The Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers v. United States, CIT # 23-00010).

Washington state importer Tip the Scale, doing businesses as L & D Kitchen and Bath, pleaded guilty and was sentenced on June 14 for "making false declarations" on the "species and harvest location" of timber it used in its wooden cabinets and vanities, DOJ announced.

The Court of International Trade in a confidential decision June 13 sustained CBP's negative evasion finding regarding Dominican company Kingtom Aluminio. Enforce and Protect Act petitioner Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee brought suit, arguing that CBP's Office of Regulations and Rulings wrongly overturned an evasion finding initially made by CBP's Trade Remedy and Law Enforcement Directorate (see 2309220032). The petitioner claimed that TRLED was right to use adverse inferences against Kingtom after the company interfered with CBP's ability to verify information submitted by the company. The court hasn't given any indication of when it will make the decision public (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. U.S., CIT # 22-00236).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential June 13 order sustained the Commerce Department's final results of the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia. Judge Richard Eaton gave the parties until June 20 to review the decision. AD petitioner U.S. Steel Corp. brought the case to contest Commerce's finding that exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) didn't reimburse its U.S. affiliate for AD on the relevant imports (see 2206080032) (U.S. Steel v. U.S., CIT # 21-00528).

The Court of International Trade on June 12 granted two companies' motions for voluntary dismissal in an antidumping and countervailing duty injury case and a customs case. One case, brought by exporter Adisseo Espana, contested the International Trade Commission's final determination finding that methionine from Spain and Japan injured the U.S. industry. The other, brought by importer AVA Industries, contested CBP's classification of multimedia players without screens. Neither company commented on the reasons for the dismissals (Adisseo Espana v. United States, CIT # 21-00562) (AVA Enterprises v. United States, CIT # 20-00123).

Exporter Hyundai Steel continued to challenge the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's cap-and-trade carbon emissions program was de jure specific, in comments on the agency's remand results filed at the Court of International Trade on June 13 (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00029).

Montenegro formally accepted the World Trade Organization Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies June 14, bringing to 77 the number of countries that have accepted the deal. The WTO requires 33 more to reach the two-thirds threshold needed for the agreement to be able to enter into force.

Importer Marcatus QED filed a complaint on June 13 at the Court of International Trade, claiming that the Commerce Department erred in finding that the company's shipments of preserved garlic in brine fell within the scope of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from China (Marcatus QED v. United States, CIT # 24-00091).