Jacob Kopnick

After two failed attempts to prove that subsidies provided by the government of Spain to olive growers are de jure specific, the Commerce Department now asserts that the subsidies are de facto specific, in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade Nov. 3. While still disagreeing with the trade court's finding that the subsidies are not de jure specific to olive growers, Commerce nevertheless backed down and now argues for de facto specificity instead. Because the Spanish government purportedly failed to submit the information Commerce needed to hold de facto specificity on remand, the agency relied on facts otherwise available to derive the proposed countervailing duty rate.

The Commerce Department continued to defend its use of adverse facts available relating to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty case despite recent claims that it has discredited its position on this program. In a Nov. 2 brief filed at the Court of International Trade, Commerce said that it is not simply compelled to rely on CVD respondents' statements that an alleged subsidy program was not used when a government fails to give information on how the program was administered to the point where verification of non-use is impossible (Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings v. U.S., CIT #21-00166).

Antidumping duty review petitioner Maverick Tube Corporation's argument's against the Commerce Department's move to rely on the actual costs of prime and non-prime products as reported by the AD respondent misinterprets a key precedential decision, AD respondent Nexteel Co. argued in a Nov. 3 brief at the Court of International Trade. Instead, Commerce complied with the court's orders and the precedent set in this decision made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit -- Dillinger France S.A. v. United States -- when it reversed the adjustment to the respondent's reported costs (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00112).

CBP should have liquidated Accolade USA Inc.'s apparel imports at the transaction price between it and its Canadian parent company Accolade Group Inc. (AGI), Accolade USA argued in its Oct. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The apparel imports qualify for the transaction value since the relationship between AGI and Accolade USA doesn't impact the price paid for the apparel and the sale is made on the terms that it's for exportation to the U.S., the complaint said.

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

The Commerce Department's decision to reverse the adjustment to an antidumping duty review respondent's reported costs, relying instead on the actual costs of prime and non-prime products as reported by the respondent, complies with the standard set in the Dillinger France v. U.S decision, Commerce said. Replying to the antidumping respondent, Maverick Tube Corporation, in a Nov. 3 reply brief, Commerce said that its position did not require further consideration, but in fact a reversal, to comply with orders from the Court of International Trade (Husteel v. U.S., CIT #19-00112).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should reverse a Court of International Trade decision that found that CBP's "indirect method" for weighing importer New Image Global's tobacco wraps that included the weight of additives was legally and scientifically valid, New Image argued in its Nov. 1 opening brief. The Federal Circuit should remand the case to instruct the trade court that the original test for weighing the tobacco wraps was valid, the importer said.

The Court of International Trade erred when it took "bypass" liquidations into its consideration of treatment previously afforded importer Kent International's children's bicycle seats, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Nov. 3 opinion. Remanding the issue to the trade court, a three-judge panel at the Federal Circuit, however, upheld CIT's determination that there was no de facto "established and uniform practice" (EUP) regarding the customs classification of kids' bike seats.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Nov. 2 rejected agricultural merchandise importer Ben Ghee Tan's rationale for not appearing before CBP to testify in an investigation over owed duties. Tan argued that CBP hadn't provided enough information about the subjects he was to be asked during testimony, as required by the statute. A three-judge panel at the 9th Circuit sided with a California district court in this case, rejecting Tan's interpretation of the text (United States v. Ben Ghee Tan, 9th Circ. #20-56399).