Court of International Trade

Summary of Decisions

19-99

On August 1, 2019, the CIT remanded Commerce’s remand redetermination in the administrative review of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Mexico. The court found that Commerce’s remand results did not comply with the court’s order and the decision by Commerce to apply a 40.52% AFA-rate to Plaintiff Deacero is unsupported by substantial evidence.

19-100

On August 1, 2019, the court sustained Commerce’s remand redetermination in the first administrative review of steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico. The CIT found that Commerce’s decision not to collapse six non-producing fixed asset owning companies on remand complied with the court’s order and was supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, Commerce’s reliance on the cost experiences of the collapsed fixed asset owners to value the non-collapsed companies and decision not to apply total or partial facts available with an adverse inference to the respondent were sustained.

Section 701/731 Proceedings

Investigations

  • Magnesium from Israel: On August 5, 2019, the ITC released the schedule of the final phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations.
  • Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico: On August 7, 2019, the ITC released the schedule of the final phase of the Antidumping Duty Investigation.
  • Steel Propane Cylinders from the People’s Republic of China and Thailand: On August 9, 2019, the ITC released the final determinations for both the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Investigations.
  • Vertical Metal File Cabinets from the People’s Republic of China: On August 21, 2019, the ITC released the schedule of the final phase of the Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations.
  • Glycine from Thailand: On August 21, 2019, the ITC announced in its final determination that it would be terminating the Countervailing Duty Investigation.
  • Glycine from Thailand: On August 23, 2019, the ITC announced the final schedule of the final phase of the Antidumping Duty Investigation.
  • Acetone from Belgium, Korea, Singapore, South Africa, and Spain: On August 26, 2019, the ITC released the schedule of the final phase of the Antidumping Duty Investigation.
  • Carbon and Alloy Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s Republic of China, India, Taiwan, and Thailand: On August 27, 2019, the ITC released the schedule of the final phase of the Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations.
  • Steel Trailer Wheels from the People’s Republic of China: On August 28, 2019, the ITC announced in its final determination that imports of the subject merchandise have caused material injury to a U.S. industry.

Investigations

  • Glycine from Thailand: On August 5, 2019, Commerce released its final negative Countervailing Duty determination and final negative Critical Circumstances determination.
  • Glycine from Thailand: On August 5, 2019, Commerce released its final determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation and final affirmative determination of Critical Circumstances in Part.
  • Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: On August 12, 2019, Commerce announced the final affirmative determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders.
  • Steel Propane Cylinders from the People’s Republic of China and Thailand: On August 15, 2019, Commerce released the amended final determinations in the Antidumping Duty Investigation.
  • Refillable Stainless Steel Kegs from Mexico: On August 19, 2019, Commerce released the final affirmative determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation and final determination of Critical Circumstances.
  • Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: On August 28, 2019, Commerce issued a notice of the final results of the Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review.

President Trump Announces Tariffs on $300 Billion of Chinese Products

On Thursday, August 1, 2019, President Trump announced via twitter an additional 10% tariff on $300 billion worth of Chinese products (“List 4”). This is the fourth round of tariffs in the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China. The List 4 tariffs were proposed on May 13, 2019 (see our previous post here).

President Trump indicated that the tariffs will begin on September 1, 2019 at a 10% duty rate and come as a result of China not purchasing large quantities of U.S. agricultural products and its continued sales of fentanyl. To see the full post on President Trump’s tariffs, click here.

On August 23, 2019, President Trump announced via Twitter that the tariff rates on Lists 1, 2, and 3, worth approximately $250 billion worth of goods imported from China, will increase from 25% duty to 30% beginning October 1, 2019. Additionally, the President indicated that the tariff rate on the List 4 tariffs currently set to begin on September 1 will increase to 15% from 10%. It is unclear if the tariffs currently set to go into effect on December 15 will also be increased to 15%.

In May of 2019, the US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) added Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (“Huawei”) and sixty-eight of its affiliated companies to BIS’s Entity List.  These designations prohibit anyone, anywhere in the world from exporting, re-exporting or making an in-country transfer of “items subject to the EAR” to the listed Huawei Companies (“Items subject to the EAR” generally consist of US-origin commodities, software or technology, items produced outside the US which include qualifying US-origin content and items that are physically present in or transiting through the US).  Shortly after making these designations, BIS issued a Temporary General License which authorized limited ongoing transactions with Huawei to support existing networks and Huawei equipment and handsets.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) announced on August 13, 2019 that several goods included on the upcoming tranche 4 of Section 301 tariffs, including laptops, computer monitors, cell phones, video game consoles, certain toys and certain items of footwear and clothing, will not face additional 10 percent tariffs until December 15, 2019. The agency also said there will be some products excluded entirely from the new set of tariffs for health, safety, national security or “other factors.” 

In the last year or so, it has become clearly evident to us that ocean carriers are treating European and other forwarders differently than how they deal with U.S. forwarders, creating a distinctly competitive disadvantage for U.S. ocean forwarders, NVOCCs and Customs brokers. The bottom line activity is that ocean carriers are creating beneficial sell rates to “forwarders”, usually in ocean carriers’ tariffs, for use exclusively by European forwarders located in certain locations in Europe and elsewhere (not the U.S.). We are using the term “forwarders” here in the U.S. sense. But for our narrative here, the European forwarder, located in Europe and other locations[1], will dispatch cargo from Europe based on lump sum rates formulated from the sell rates offered to them by the ocean carriers, but will not hold out as NVOCCs, nor issue house bills of lading. Many of these forwarders are neither licensed nor registered with the FMC as NVOCCs. In fact, U.S. forwarders under the current definition of “forwarders” could similarly issue lump sum rates under the current FMC regulations for export transport from the U.S. Unfortunately, the ocean carriers, probably sensitive to U.S. regulatory structures do not provide U.S. forwarders similarly competitive rate structures for exports from the U.S. or for inbound traffic controlled by U.S. consignees. But also, more egregiously, if a U.S. forwarder, who also may be an NVOCC/Customs broker, controls import cargo to be shipped to the U.S. on a “collect” basis, the U.S. Ocean Transportation Intermediary (“OTI”) may have to “purchase” a favorable rate from the unlicensed, unregistered forwarder in Europe who does have the benefit of the competitive rate, even though it may not be a licensed or registered NVOCC.  The question: Is this legal? After discussing this with FMC officials, the answer is, “Probably.”

Court of International Trade

Summary of Decisions

19-79

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.

19-80

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.”