Court of International Trade

When a former TV receiver maker, Five Rivers Electronics Innovation LLC, sought a share of the duties distributed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection for fiscal year 2009 on color television receivers from China under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (aka the Byrd Amendment), CBP denied the certification because the firm no longer produced any sets in 2009. The manufacturer sued, arguing that “[t]o force a company that has been injured by the dumped imports to continue to produce subject product especially in the face of continued dumping and other harsh economic conditions, not only defies logic but is contrary to the purpose behind the law.” However, the Court of International Trade ruled that Congress, through the CDSOA statute, “explicitly favored domestic producers who remain in production,” and dismissed the complaint. Note that the CDSOA was repealed in 2006. (Slip Op. 11-28, dated 03/14/11)

In Ford Motor Company v. the U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a CIT decision, ruling that so long as an importer's claim for post-entry duty refunds for NAFTA preferential treatment of imports was timely filed within one year of importation, the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to consider whether Customs should accept Ford’s late-filed NAFTA Certificates of Origin.

Russian producer-exporter PSC challenged the International Trade Administration’s use of a 43.58% adverse antidumping duty rate in the April 2007 - March 2008 AD review of magnesium metal from Russia. PSC VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation and VSMPO-Tirus, U.S., Inc. (collectively, PSC) had withdrawn from the review, citing the burden of multiple verifications, among other causes.

The Watanabe Group asked the Court of International Trade to reconsider and vacate its decision upholding the ITA’s assignment of the China-wide rate of 258.21% in the antidumping duty administrative review of certain lined paper products from China for the period September 2007 through August 2008.

On March 11, 2011, the World Trade Organization's Appellate Body (AB) reversed several findings of an October 2010 panel report on U.S. “double counting” of antidumping and countervailing duties on four products from China: certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires, laminated woven sacks, circular welded pipe, and light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (DS379).

In Estee Lauder Inc., v. U.S., the Court of International Trade ruled against U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s motion to dismiss the case, ruling that this court has jurisdiction despite some unclear facts in Lauder’s protest. The CIT stated that rather than allowing a “deemed denial” of Lauder’s request for accelerated disposition to occur, CBP should have sought the necessary factual evidence to evaluate the protest.

Union Steel Manufacturing Co, Ltd. of Korea sued over the final results of the August 2006 -- July 2007 AD administrative review of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea. Union challenged the International Trade Administration’s calculation of expense ratios; its model match using comparisons of painted products sold in the U.S. to both painted and laminated product sales in Korea; and its “zeroing” of U.S. sales sold at or above fair value (i.e., excluding non-dumped sales) when calculating the weighted average dumping margin. The Court of International Trade denied Union’s expense ratio and zeroing complaints, but granted the plaintiff’s request that the model-matching be reconsidered (the ITA also requested a voluntary remand on the question). (Slip Op. 11-18, dated 02/15/11)

Chinese exporters and domestic producers both challenged the final results of the January-December 2007 AD administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from China, questioning the ITA’s respondent selections, fair value calculations, and adverse rate assignments, among other issues. The Court of International Trade remanded the case to the ITA to 1) consider assigning a separately calculated adverse rate to Orient International Holding Shanghai, rather than the 216.01% country-wide rate, since that rate “greatly exceeds“ the highest individually assigned rate of 29.89% (Orient had duly completed its separate rate questionnaire but later withdrew its cooperation from the review); 2) reconsider the choice of the best set of published prices for wood components; 3) adjust the value for labor per the ITA’s recent redetermination in a prior review under the same order; 4) etc. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 02/11/11 news, 11021111, for BP summary of most recent CIT decision on ITA’s revised approach to NME labor values) (Slip-Op.11-16, decided 02/11/11).

On February 10, 2011, in Norman G. Jensen, Inc., v. U.S., the Court of International Trade ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to compel U.S. Customs and Border Protection to rule on protests of liquidation, and that plaintiffs seeking a prompt CBP ruling on such protests should use available administrative procedures, such as filing a request for accelerated disposition, instead of seeking action through the CIT.

In the August 2006 - July 2007 antidumping duty administrative review of folding metal ironing tables from China, the ITA found Chinese producer Since Hardware (Gouangzhou) Co., Ltd. had provided falsified certificates of origin for its primary inputs, to claim its steel inputs were from market economy countries. The company had used identical questionable documents in the prior review. Therefore, with a legal challenge to the prior review still underway, domestic producer Home Products, Inc. sought to amend its complaint in that review with the new evidence of fraud, and to remand the case to the International Trade Administration, but the Court of International Trade denied the request. Now the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that since “new evidence indicates the agency’s proceedings were tainted by material fraud,” the CIT must remand the prior review to the ITA.