Jacob Kopnick

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Importer Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co. filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade, contesting what is the proper classification for its aluminum fuel pump mounts. Hongteo is seeking a more favorable HTS subheading that would lower the duty rate for the mounts and remove the Section 301 China tariff liability from the imports. The entries, in particular, are "six components made chiefly of aluminum, used to mount fuel pumps onto certain automotive spark-ignition internal combustion piston engines" (Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #20-03776).

Antidumping petitioner American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance voiced its support for the Commerce Department's remand results in Nov.10 comments submitted to the Court of International Trade. After CIT remanded the case to Commerce for its failure to address the concerns of the mandatory respondent, the agency returned with a more thorough backing of its surrogate financial ratio decision that it believes adequately addresses the respondent's concerns (see 2110130053) (The Ancientree Cabinet Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 20-00114).

Importer Eteros Technologies USA could not have imported its motor frame assemblies -- a product deemed "drug paraphernalia" -- since there was no law specifically authorizing Eteros to possess or distribute the drug paraphernalia, the Department of Justice argued in a Nov. 5 brief to the Court of International Trade. Countering Eteros' position that it was allowed to import the drug paraphernalia since it was allowed under state law, DOJ said that Washington state law merely decriminalized the possession of drug paraphernalia but did not explicitly allow its importation (Eteros Technologies USA, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00287).

The Commerce Department denied a group of domestic solar panel manufacturers' bid to remain anonymous in their requests for anti-circumvention inquiries on solar cells from Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand, denying the requests while noting that the manufacturers may revive the requests if they agree to make their identities public. In a letter sent Nov. 10, Commerce said anonymous treatment is "unwarranted" and that the company's names should be publicly disclosed if the anti-circumvention inquiries are to proceed.

The Court of International Trade "created a paradox" when ruling that CBP's seizure of alleged drug paraphernalia is not an admissibility determination, while at the same time finding that the seizure prevents a deemed exclusion of the merchandise, importer Root Sciences said in a Nov. 8 brief. Looking to get CIT to reconsider a previous ruling that found that the court didn't have jurisdiction over cases in which CBP seized goods, Root said CIT's ruling has caused it to be "cast into a jurisdictional wilderness" (Root Sciences, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00123).

The Court of International Trade granted on Nov. 9 a voluntary remand motion from the Commerce Department to reconsider the terms of an alleged benefit conferred to a countervailing duty review respondent. In particular, Commerce will reconsider a South Korean government program relating to the payments of sewerage fees that allegedly gave respondent Hyundai Steel Co.a countervailable benefit. The case concerns the 2018 CVD administrative review of cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea. Commerce said it wants to reconsider the sewerage fees program since it learned more about the program when conducting the 2019 CVD review of the same goods (see 2111080050). The agency has 90 days to reconsider its position (Hyundai Steel Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00012).

The Commerce Department further defended its decision to continue relying on facts otherwise available in Nov. 8 comments submitted to the Court of International Trade, despite a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion finding that such reliance on the current data was inappropriate. The plaintiff in the case, Dillinger France, argued that Commerce ignored the Federal Circuit's directive by continuing to rely on the "likely selling prices" in Dillinger France's records rather than the actual cost of production. Commerce responded that the plaintiff failed to submit the actual product-specific costs of producing the non-prime products or the physical characteristics of the non-prime products, leading to no other choice but to use facts otherwise available (Dillinger France S.A. v. United States, CIT #17-00159).

Hyundai Steel Co. attempted to explain away an attack from antidumping petitioner U.S. Steel that it has a "troubling history" on a key issue in the AD review, in a Nov. 8 brief submitted to the Court of International Trade. Asserting that its prior positions are irrelevant to the issue at hand, Hyundai characterized U.S. Steel's attacks as "without merit," arguing instead that its "perceived deficiency" in certain data fields can be easily explained to Commerce (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00099).

The Court of International Trade should remand the Commerce Department's particular market situation adjustment to an exporter's constructed value, the exporter, Garg Tube Export, argued in a Nov. 8 brief at CIT. Substantial evidence does not support Commerce's evidence of a PMS existing, so the holding should be remanded, Garg Tube said. Though Commerce correctly reversed its PMS adjustment to its sales-below-cost test for some Garg Tube products on a first remand, the agency should not have found a PMS existed at all for Garg Tube, the exporter said.