The Court of International Trade on Aug. 12 sustained the Commerce Department's selection of a surrogate financial statement and use of respondent Siam Metal Tech Co.'s invoice date as the date of sale for the respondent's U.S. sales in an antidumping duty proceeding. Sustaining the AD investigation on boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from Thailand, Judge Mark Barnett also upheld the agency's reliance on respondents Bangkok Sheet Metal Public Co.'s and Siam Metal's actual costs that are recorded in their financial accounting systems for the total cost of manufacturing.
The Commerce Department properly included importer Valeo North America's T-series aluminum sheet in the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Aug. 12. Judges Richard Taranto, Todd Hughes and Kara Stoll disagreed with the importer as to the ambiguity in the orders' scope and on whether its aluminum sheet falls outside the orders' scope, since it's heat-treated.
Brazil requested dispute consultations with the U.S. at the World Trade Organization on Aug. 11 regarding the 50% tariffs that President Donald Trump recently imposed on Brazilian goods. Brazil said the measures are inconsistent with U.S. obligations under Articles I and II of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 and Articles 23.1 and 23.2 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU).
The U.S. filed a motion for default judgment at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 10 against importer Rago Tires, seeking $56,435.48 for gross negligence in classifying its tires as not subject to antidumping duties and countervailing duties (United States v. Rago Tires, CIT # 24-00043).
The U.S. "myopically" focused on a "single piece of evidence" regarding the proper date of sale of exporter Toyo Kohan's U.S. sales in the 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on diffusion-annealed nickel-plate flat-rolled steel from Japan, Toyo Kohan argued in an Aug. 8 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The government's brief centered on a statement in the exporter's questionnaire responses and the "price of a single example sales transaction" and says this focus is "reasonable," yet it's unreasonable to "ignore the second example in the same exhibit" that shows a price change, the brief said (Toyo Kohan Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00261).
The Commerce Department on Aug. 8 calculated an individual countervailing duty rate for exporter Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. on remand in a case on the administrative review of the CVD order on multilayered wood flooring from China for the 2017 review period. Commerce gave Jiangsu Senmao a 2.4% CVD rate in response to an instruction from the Court of International Trade to individually review the respondent (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-03885).
The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 11 that stripping the president of his authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act would lead to "ruinous" economic consequences in light of the trade deals reached with the EU, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and the U.K. (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1813).
The U.S. filed a motion for default judgment on Aug. 7 against importer E-Dong, U.S.A. in pursuit of $234,748.30 in lost revenue due to the importer's negligent failure to pay a federal excise tax on its "Korean distilled beverage soju." The government said E-Dong lied on customs forms by misclassifying the distilled liquor as rice wine, adding that these misstatements "constitute negligent violations for failure to exercise reasonable care and competence" (United States v. E-Dong, U.S.A., CIT # 24-00066).
The U.S. agreed to liquidate importer SW Technologies' nitrile rubber globes under the importer's preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading -- a move which will see CBP refund SW Technologies ordinary customs duties and Section 301 tariffs. The goods were initially imported under HTS subheading 4015.19.1010, which covers non-medical gloves at a 3% duty rate. SW Technologies argued at the Court of International Trade that the gloves should have been classified under the duty-free subheading 4015.19.0550 as medical gloves. Per a stipulated judgment at CIT, the U.S. will liquidate the importer's entries under its preferred subheading and secondary subheading 9903.88.39, which exempts the goods from Section 301 duties (SW Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 23-00119).
The government will appeal an August Court of International Trade decision finding that its claim for unpaid duties against a surety company on an entry liquidated in 2009 violates both the statute of limitations for seeking payment and an implied requirement in the bond that demand for payment be made in a reasonable time (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).