Court of International Trade

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.

Russian urea producer and exporter MCC Eurochem sued over the International Trade Administration’s use of zeroing in the antidumping administrative review of solid urea from the Russian Federation for the period July 2008 -- June 2009. (Zeroing refers to the ITA’s practice of excluding from its margin calculations in administrative reviews those U.S. transactions which are made at or above fair value, and using only U.S. transactions with dumping margins. The ITA is currently reconsidering the policy.) However, the Court of International Trade denied the challenge, noting that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has consistently upheld the reasonableness of the zeroing practice and has denied petitions for a rehearing in multiple high-profile cases. (Slip Op. 11-13, dated 01/25/11)

After the preliminary results in the June 2006 -- May 2007 AD administrative review of tapered roller bearings and parts thereof from China, the International Trade Administration altered its methodology for valuing imports manufactured by Peer Bearing Company-Changshan, and, applying “facts otherwise available” for certain missing raw material values (without an adverse inference since the company was cooperative), assigned the firm an AD duty rate of 92.94% for the final results, up from 59.41% in the preliminary results. In response to the Chinese producer’s challenge of these results, the Court of International Trade ordered the ITA to determine anew the appropriate raw material values and pricing methodology. (Slip Op. 11-10, dated 01/25/11)

Following the final results of the January-December 2006 countervailing duty administrative review of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India, the Court of International Trade instructed the International Trade Administration, among other remand orders, to reassess its determination that Essar Steel Ltd. had benefited from a Chhattisgarh State Industrial Policy since, in other review periods, the agency had found the policy did not benefit the company. For its remand redetermination, the ITA changed its conclusion, finding no benefit. Domestic manufacturers challenged the redetermination, but the court upheld the ITA’s altered position. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 01/01/10 news, 10010550, for BP summary of the decision that remanded the issue to ITA.) (Slip Op. 11-11, dated 01/28/11)

On January 24, 2011 in Xerox Corporation v. U.S., the Court of International Trade remanded back to U.S. Customs and Border Protection a government procurement final determination on certain recycled laser toner printer cartridges and ordered CBP to explicitly identify the country of origin or state why it cannot be determined.

The International Trade Administration is amending a final antidumping duty scope ruling regarding carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China (A-570-814) to exclude fittings used only in structural applications, pursuant to a court ruling.

In Trumpf Medical Systems, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of International Trade granted in part Trumpf’s claims and ordered that U.S. Customs and Border Protection reliquidate entries of certain imported surgical light systems under HTS subheading 9018.19.95, as other electro-medical instruments, at a rate of duty-free. CIT also ordered the reliquidation of certain related light system components.

Following the August 2005 -- July 2006 AD administrative review of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (“CORE products”) from Korea, the Court of International Trade granted the ITA’s voluntary remand to reconsider its model-matching method for comparing U.S. sales to home market sales. In its remand determination, the ITA decided not to revise its method, but the court ruled that comparing U.S. sales of painted CORE products to home market sales of both painted and laminated products violated the statutory requirement of comparing products “identical in physical characteristics,” and remanded the case back to the ITA again. (CIT Slip Op. 11-3, decided January 11, 2011)

iScholar, Inc., an American importer affected by an adverse AD duty rate in the September 2007 - August 2008 AD review of certain lined paper products from India, brought suit against the ITA for its determination that an uncooperative Indian mandatory respondent merited an adverse rate of 72.03%, selected from among the individual transactions of the other mandatory respondent (whose overall rate was only 1.34%). Because Blue Bird (India) Ltd. ceased responding to the agency’s questionnaires in mid-review and the rate chosen by the ITA was based on a sale “within the mainstream” of the cooperating respondent’s sales, the Court of International Trade upheld the agency’s determination. (CIT Slip Op. 11-4, dated January 13, 2011)

On remand from an earlier Court of International Trade decision, the ITA made a redetermination excluding from the scope of the AD order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China such products that are imported and used only in architectural or structural applications. Importer King Supply Co., having won its exclusion, nevertheless sued again, in order to further clarify the agency’s new scope ruling, but the court ruled that the redetermination ruling is clear, and rejected King’s request for further remand proceedings. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 10/05/10 news, 10100521, for BP summary of CIT remand ruling.) (CIT Slip Op. 11-2, dated January 6, 2011)