Court of International Trade
Summary of Decisions
On April 1, 2019, the CIT sustained and further remanded Commerce’s remand redetermination in the 2014-2015 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products from Turkey. Commerce’s action on remand negated the statutory drawback adjustment that Plaintiff Toscelik earned by exporting its finished product to the United States and impinges on the agency’s ability to make a fair comparison. Commerce reasonably relied on Plaintff Toscelik’s questionnaire responses and concluded that Commerce’s grant of circumstances of sale adjustment was supported by substantial evidence.
On April 5, 2019, the CIT granted the Defendant’s motion for partial dismissal and partially dismissed the consolidated plaintiff’s, SeAH Steel Corporation, complaint in the final determination of the 2015-2016 administrative review of the antidumping order for welded line pipe from the Republic of Korea. The Defendant sought to dismiss paragraph ten of Plaintiff SeAh’s argument, which stated, “Finally, Plaintiff believes that Commerce’s determination may have contained other errors of law and fact that will become more apparent after a full review of the administrative record.” The CIT concluded that because paragraph ten of Plaintiff SeAh’s argument stated no specific errors of law or fact and denied the other parties fair notice of the scope of SeAh’s claims, the paragraph will be dismissed.
On April 5, 2019, the CIT granted in part the Defendant’s motion to partially dismiss Plaintiff Perry Chemical’s complaint to the extent that it seeks relief for injuries allegedly sustained by other parties, and with respect to the second administrative review entries of the subject merchandise. The CIT found that Plaintiff Perry Chemicals lacked standing because they did not pay the cash deposits and suffered no injury during the second administrative review.
On April 12, 2019, the CIT denied the defendant’s, Hyundai Heavy Industries and Hyundai Corporation, motion for reconsideration on the basis that Hyundai improperly re-litigated issues that had already been addressed and rejected by the court.
On April 22, 2019, the CIT granted the Plaintiff, United States, motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the Plaintiff, Titan Metals, had submitted fraudulent entry documents. The court found no genuine issue of material fact and ordered the Plaintiff to pay $146,368.64 in antidumping duties and a penalty of $141,984.98, 50% of the statutory maximum of $283,969.77.
On April 26, 2019, the CIT sustained Commerce’s final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering freshwater crawfish tail meat from China. Because Commerce did not abuse its discretion by rejecting the untimely filed financial statements, and Plaintiff Xiping Opeck Food Co., LTD., had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies when disputing the use of the South African financial statements, the court sustained Commerce’s final results.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
On April 9, 2019, the CAFC granted Plaintiff Irwin Industrial Tool Company’s motion for summary judgments that its imported hand tools were properly classified as pliers under HTSUS code 8203.20.6030. The Defendant argued against the ruling, saying that the subject merchandise was misclassified by the CIT and should instead be ruled as wrenches. The Federal Circuit concluded that there was substantial evident that Plaintiff Irwin Industrial Tool Company’s tools were properly identified as pliers and not wrenches.
On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff Rubies Costume Company appealed the grant of summary judgment by the CIT in favor of the Government as to the tariff classification of a nine-piece Santa Claus costume packaged and sold together as a set. The parties argued as to the implications of the “festive” nature of the costume. The merchandise, however, is excluded from classification as “festive articles” by the notes to chapter 95 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. The Court concluded that the correct classification of the merchandise is under HTSUS 6110.30.30, 6103.43.15, 6116.93.94, and 4209.92.30. The CAFC found that the jacket, pants, and gloves have, “the features of a well-made textile costume, classifiable as wearing apparel under HTSUS chapter 61.” The CAFC also agreed with the CIT’s conclusion that the Santa Suit Toy sack had the essential characteristics of items listed under heading 4202. On that basis, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of International Trade.