The Commerce Department wrongly denied Section 232 exclusion requests for tin mill products despite a lack of domestic supply, Seneca Foods Corporation said in its Feb. 28 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The motion challenges eight decisions by Commerce denying Seneca’s requests for exclusions from Section 232 tariffs for tin mill products consisting of steel (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).
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 Court of International Trade should deny a motion for a preliminary injunction by two plaintiff-intervenors because granting that injunction would expand the case beyond its original issues in violation of Supreme Court rulings, DOJ argued in its Feb. 28 response at the Court of International Trade. By requesting an injunction that covers entries not initially subject to the proceeding filed by Jilin Bright, plaintiff-intervenors seek to expand the issues covered by the proceeding, DOJ argued (Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00336).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Court of International Trade should grant the government's motion to reconsider its decision to send back the Commerce Department's use of a transaction-specific margin for an adverse facts available rate it assigned to an antidumping duty respondent, the American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring (AMMWF) argued in a Feb. 27 response (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00144).
The Commerce Department unlawfully failed to adjust non-selected companies' cash deposit and assessment rates to account for export subsidy offsets in an antidumping duty review, an association of Indian producers and exports of quartz surface products said in a Feb. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Federation of Indian Quartz Surface Industry v. U.S., CIT # 23-00026).
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative erred when it decided not to reinstate a Section 301 tariff exclusion on water coolers even though the only party in opposition to the exclusion subsequently withdrew its comments, DS Services of America said in its Feb. 27 filing on the remand results at the Court of International Trade (DS Services of America v. United States, CIT # 22-00157).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Feb. 24 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):
Meyer Corporation will appeal a Court of International Trade decision (see 2302090053) denying the use of first sale on Meyer's cookware imports, the company said in a notice. The case concerns first sale treatment of sets of imported pots and pans from a Thai producer and Chinese middleman related to Meyer (Meyer Corporation v. United States, CIT # 13-00154).
The Commerce Department stood by its usage of financial statements in an antidumping duty review on mattresses from Vietnam in remand results filed with the Court of International Trade Feb. 23. Following a remand by Judge Timothy Reif, Commerce continued to determine that the financial data it used was complete and publicly available and continued to use that information to derive surrogate financial ratios, leaving the AD rate for plaintiff Ashley Furniture at 144.92% (Ashley Furniture Industries, et al. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00283).