Costs incurred by South Korean pipe producer Nexteel's suspended production lines should not have been treated as general and administrative costs by the Commerce Department during an antidumping duty review on welded line pipe from South Korea, Nexteel told the Court of International Trade in its April 5 comments on Commerce's remand results (Nexteel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 20-03898).
Ben Perkins
Ben Perkins, Assistant Editor, is a reporter with International Trade Today and its sister publications, Trade Law Daily and Export Compliance Daily, where he covers sanctions, court rulings, and other international trade issues. He previously worked as a trade analyst for a Washington D.C. advisory firm. Ben holds a B.A. in English from the University of New Hampshire and an M.A. in International Relations from American University. Ben joined the staff of Warren Communications News in 2022.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Commerce Department incorrectly applied adverse facts available to a Spanish olive producer and incorrectly applied a standard for determining product demand in its third administrative review of the countervailing duty order on ripe olives from Spain, the Asociación de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa (ASEMESA), Agro Sevilla and Angel Camacho said in their April 4 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Asociación de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa; Agro Sevilla Aceitunas S. Coop. And., Angel Camacho Alimentación, S.L., v. U.S., CIT # 23-00076).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated April 3 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
Brazilian honey producer Supermel didn't fail to provide information to the Commerce Department during an antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Brazil and the agencyt's subsequent use of adverse facts available was incorrect, Supermel said in an April 4 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Apiario Diamente Comercial Exportadora v. U.S., CIT # 22-00185).
The International Trade Commission incorrectly found that imports of cut-to-length plate from Brazil did not threaten domestic producers, in its five-year reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate, domestic producer Cleveland-Cliffs said in a March 31 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade (Cleveland-Cliffs v. U.S., CIT # 23-00050).
The Commerce Department continued to ignore a Court of International Trade remand order when it continued to refuse in its remand results to grant a changed circumstances review for GreenFirst Forest, the company said in its April 3 comments (GreenFirst Forest Products v. U.S., CIT # 22-00097).
The Court of International Trade on April 3 again sent back Commerce’s third remand redetermination in an antidumping duty investigation on steel nails from Taiwan.
Imported "LED lighting products" are properly classified as light-emitting diode (LED) lamps, not subject to Section 232 tariffs, importer Super Bright LEDs argued in a March 31 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Super Bright asked the court to reclassify its imported lights under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8539.50.00, which carries a duty rate of 2% but is not subject to additional Section 232 duties (Super Bright LEDs v. U.S., CIT # 21-00099).
Boronized steel tubes, originally classified by CBP as duty-free U.S. goods returned after repairs, are correctly classified as unfinished steel tubes and subject to Section 301 tariffs, DOJ argued in its March 31 motion at the Court of International Trade. The government asked the court to deny a motion by importer Maple Leaf Marketing to dismiss the government's counterclaim (Maple Leaf Marketing v. United State, CIT # 20-03839).