Court of International Trade

On September 8, 2021, after a longstanding dispute, the US Court of International Trade issued an order resolving the steps that Plaintiffs will need to take in order to preserve their rights to receive refunds, in conformance with the injunction that was issued by the court on July 6, 2021.   The Government recently conceded that, as a practical matter, it does not have the resources to suspend liquidation on an ongoing basis to comply with the Court’s PI order. As a result, in lieu of suspension, the Government stipulated that it will rely on post-judgment reliquidation or refunds to provide the remedy in the event Plaintiffs’ claims are successful – the very solution that Plaintiffs had been advocating for since the entry of the PI order. As a result, the Court issued the attached Order lifting the PI and TRO and removing the requirement for a CBP repository.   Customs will continue liquidating entries in the ordinary course as they have done.

On December 11, 2020, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), through the U.S. Department of Justice, filed a civil action in the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) in New York, United States v. Winland International, Inc. et al.  The government alleges false statement to avoid paying the correct antidumping (“AD”) rates and instead declaring inappropriate combination rates apply, as well as undervaluation of the goods, certain types of tires.  Fourteen individuals, as well as the company are named in the civil case at the CIT.  The press release of the U.S. Department of Justice states that the alleged violations total at least $6.5 million in lost import duty deposits.

The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) will not stay its order (Ct. No. 19-00009) instructing  U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to refund importers’ Section 232 tariffs on steel from Turkey.  A three-judge panel denied the government’s motion to stay while also denying the Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce judgement.  The CIT found that the…

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.”

Court of International Trade

Summary of Decisions

19-66

On June 3, 2019, in the ongoing case of determining whether or not Plaintiff Midwest Fastener’s zinc and nylon anchor products are considered to be nails, the CIT sustained the Department of Commerce’s final results of the redetermination pursuant to the Court Remand. The CIT concluded that Plaintiff’s zinc and nylon anchors do not function like nails and are considered a separate type of product from nails by the relevant industry. Commerce’s remand results were sustained and Plaintiff Midwest Fastener’s products were excluded from the scope.

19-69

On June 6, the CIT denied Plaintiffs Confederacion de Asociaciones Agricolas del Estado de Sinaloa, Consejo Agricola de Baja California, Asociacion Mexicana de Horticultura Protegida, Asociacion de Productores de Hortalizas del Yaqui y Mayo, and Sistem Producto Tomate (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction (“PI”) in the antidumping duty investigation of tomatoes from Mexico. The Court determined that the Plaintiffs had not met their burden to establish the likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. They also had failed to establish if the hardships tip in favor of denying the Plaintiff’s motion. The Court also found the public interest to be neutral. For those reasons the CIT denied the plaintiff’s motions.

U.S. International Trade Commission

Section 701/731 Proceedings

Investigations
  • Mattresses from the People’s Republic of China: On June 13, 2019, the ITC released the schedule for the final phase of the Antidumping Duty Investigation.
  • Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico: On June 14, 2019, the ITC announced the resumption of the final phase of the Antidumping Duty Investigation.
  • Stainless Steel Kegs from the People’s Republic of China, Germany, and Mexico: On June 17, 2019, the ITC released the schedule of the Final Phase of Countervailing and Antidumping Duty Investigations.
  • Glycine from the People’s Republic of China, India, Japan: On June 21, 2019, the ITC released the final determinations in the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty investigations.
  • Aluminum Wire and Cable from the People’s Republic of China: On June 28, 2019, the ITC released the schedule for the final phase of the Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations.

Court of International Trade

Summary of Decisions

19-52

On May 1, 2019, the CIT sustained Commerce’s remand redetermination results following a countervailing duty investigation for certain hot-rolled steel flat products from the Republic of Korea. The court reviewed two issues on remand, Commerce’s selection of the highest calculated AFA rate and Commerce’s corroboration. Concerning the first issued on the selection of the AFA rate, the CIT found that Plaintiff POSCO did not exhaust its administrative remedies. The second issue presented was whether or not the selected 1.05% AFA rate was corroborated based upon substantial evidence and whether Commerce’s selection of a non-de-minimis AFA rate was appropriate because it was a rate calculated for a cooperating Korean company in another countervailing duty proceeding for a similar program.

19-53

On May 2, 2019, in the case of garage door openers that were redesigned to avoid infringement on a registered patent, the CIT denied the ITC’s motion for a stay pending appeal based on the grounds that the ITC did not meet its burden for a stay. A stay of the preliminary injunction and all other proceedings in this matter was not warranted as: (1) the ITC has not demonstrated a “strong showing” of likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the ITC has not demonstrated that it will be irreparably injured absent a stay in this action, (3) the issuance of a stay would substantially injure another party, the Plaintiff, and (4) the public interest is neutral. For those reasons, the CIT denied the ITC’s motion for a stay.

On March 25, 2019, the Court of International Trade issued its decision in the American Institute for International Steel’s appeal on the institution of Section 232 tariffs on steel products.  The CIT found that the Section 232 tariffs were constitutional and thus this decision results in the continuation of these tariffs for the foreseeable future.