Court of International Trade
Summary of Decisions
On July 1, 2019, in the ongoing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People’s Republic of China, the Court concluded that jurisdiction over this action exists because Plaintiff Perfectus’s complaint seeking review of the scope ruling was filed within thirty days of the mailing by post of that ruling as required by statute and was therefore timely and the Court sustains Commerce’s finding that the pallet products fall within the plain language of the scope of the Orders.
On July 2, 2019, in the classification case of stringed light sets, the Court granted Plaintiff Target’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Defendant’s cross-motion. The CIT concluded that the subject merchandise based on the principal of use and commercial fungibility with other products was incorrectly classified by Customs. In the Opinion, the CIT stated, “there can be no genuine issue of material fact that the lighting sets at issue are not principally used as Christmas tree lights and are not fungible with Christmas tree lights.”
On July 3, 2019, in the antidumping duty investigation covering hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) blends and components from the People’s Republic of China, the CIT sustained the ITC’s Second Remand results on the grounds that the ITC had properly addressed the courts concerns. On remand, the ITC gathered more precise data to demonstrate that it did not reach any conclusions based on erroneous data. Second, the ITC thoroughly and appropriately explained its determination that HFC components and blends are separate like products. For those mentioned reasons, the CIT sustained the ITC’s Second Remand results.
On July 3, 2019, in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigation of polytetrafluoroethylene resin (PTFE) from India, the CIT denied Plaintiff Chemours Company FC’s motion to supplement the administrative record and remanded the matter to the ITC. The CIT also denied Defendant Intervenor Gujarat Fluorochemical’s motion to supplement the administrative record as moot.
On July 8, 2019, in the twelfth administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the CIT sustained Commerce’s redetermination. Initially, the CIT found Commerce’s decision to impose the Vietnam-wide rate on Plaintiff Thuan An to be contrary to law, however on remand Commerce reconsidered its authority to impose a Nonmarket Economy Entity (NME) rate and “acknowledges that the NME-entity rate in the underlying investigation was an individually investigated rate.”
On July 8, 2019 in the scope determination for the antidumping duty order on steel threaded rod from the People’s Republic of China, the CIT sustained Commerce’s scope determination and denied Plaintiff Star Pipe Products’ challenge to Commerce’s liquidation instructions to CBP associated with the scope determination as moot. The CIT agreed with Commerce’s determination that the steel threaded rod components of Plaintiff Star Pipe’s Joint Restraint Kit were within the scope of the Order and supported by substantial evidence.
On July 9, 2019, in the classification case of Plaintiff Ken International’s “WeeRide Kangaroo Center-Mounted Bicycle-Child Carrier”, the CIT denied the Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted the Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiff Kent International argued that their product should fall under the HTSUS subheading 9401.80.40 at a 0% duty rate, however the Court disagreed and ruled in favor of the Defendant. The CIT determined that because the subject merchandise is classifiable under heading 8714, Note 1(h) excludes the merchandise from being classified under the 9401 heading.
On July 9, 2019, in the final determination in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering certain cased pencils from the People’s Republic of China, the CIT sustained and remanded Commerce’s final determination. The CIT agreed with Commerce’s decision that Plaintiff Prime Time’s submission was an unsolicited questionnaire response. The court however, concluded that Commerce acted contrary to law when it removed Prime Time’s information from the record and rejected its submission.
On July 17, 2019, in the final affirmative determination in the antidumping duty investigation of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from France, Commerce sustained the final results of the Redetermination Pursuant to the Court’s Remand. The CIT found that Commerce had complied with the court’s instructions on remand and adequately explained its method for applying partial AFA. Additionally Defendant-Intervenor, Nucor, failed to provide any evidence that the rate selected is not sufficiently adverse.
On July 23, 2019, in the case of determining whether or not Commerce used the correct procedure to impose an excise tax on Plaintiff New Image Global’s tobacco wraps was in accordance with the law , the CIT granted the Defendant’s cross motion for judgment but denied Plaintiff New Image Global’s cross motion for judgment. To properly weigh the tobacco wraps, the Defendant, in accordance with USP 1251 and Custom’s regulations, used the correct procedures to find a steady weight for the wraps. The CIT agreed with the methodology and concluded that Plaintiff New Image’s challenges regarding the reliability of the procedure are without merit.
On July 25, 2019, in the case of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the People’s Republic of China, the CIT sustained Commerce’s remand redetermination. The CIT concluded that Commerce’s decision to increase Plaintiff Trina’s U.S. selling prices to account for the CVD amount imposed for the Ex-Im Bank Buyer’s Credit Program was in accordance with the law and complied with the court’s remand order.
On July 26, 2019, the CIT granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in the classification class of Plaintiff FANCU America Corporation’s imports of printed circuit assemblies used as components in FANCU’s programmable “controllers” in their industrial robots. The CIT found that there were no genuine issues of material fact and concluded that the subject merchandise was properly classified under the HTSUS subheading 8538.90.30. The merchandise is subject to a 3.5% duty rate.
On July 26, 2019, the CIT granted Plaintiff Moen’s motion to dismiss and denied as moot other pending motions in the tariff classification case of various models of showerheads imported from the People’s Republic of China. The CIT concluded that the Defendant would not suffer any clear legal prejudice if Plaintiff Moen obtained dismissal.
On July 29, 2019, the CIT sustained Commerce’s final results of the Redetermination pursuant to the Court Remand in its entirety in the countervailing duty investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Russian Federation. Plaintiffs ArcelorMittal and Novolipetsk Steel Public Joint Company (“NLMK”) challenged certain aspects of Commerce’s final determination, however the CIT found their arguments to be unpersuasive. The CIT concluded that Commerce’s selection of the AFA rate and decision to reject Plaintiff NLMK’s untimely submissions were in accordance to law.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
On July 2, 2019, the CAFC agreed with Commerce’s determination that Plaintiff-Appellant Quiedan Company’s agricultural stakes produced in the People’s Republic of China are within the scope of an antidumping duty order covering rebar from China. Used for training grape vines and other plants, these agricultural stakes are made of steel concrete reinforced bar (rebar) by cutting rebar to a length of four to five feet followed by sharpening one end to a point to ease driving the stake into the ground. The CAFC found no substantive or procedural error in Commerce’s ruling or in their continuation of a suspension liquidation for the Plaintiff’s sake.
On July 22, 2019, Plaintiff-Appellant Erwin Hymer Group North America, Inc. appealed the final judgment of the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) that granted the Government’s motion for judgment on the agency record. The CAFC found that the CIT’s assertion of residual jurisdiction was improper due to a civil action for contesting the denial of protests that could have been available under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a), and the remedy provided under § 1581(a) is not manifestly inadequate. Because the CIT lacked jurisdiction, the CAFC reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. This case involved the importation of 149 vehicles into the United States from Canada in 2014. In 2015, CBP had liquidated the entries and classified them under the HTSUS subheading 8703.24.00 that had an ad valorem rate of 2.5%. The CAFC concluded that while Plaintiff Hymer’s argument was “inventive” it was ultimately invalid. Additionally, “Hymer has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that relief under § 1581(a) is manifestly inadequate in light of the true nature of this action.”