The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed a breach of contract case against "K" Line RoRo Bulk Ship Management (KRBS), while retaining the two other related defendants, according to an Aug. 8 opinion. In the case, Ford Motor Co. is attempting to recoup $7.2 million in losses for the damage or destruction of 246 trucks in a fire on board a cargo ship that Ford said was operated by KRBS along with Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (K-Line) and “K” Line America, (KAM) (Ford Motor Company v. Kawakaki Kisen Kaisha et. al., E.D. Mich. # 21-10119).
Ben Perkins
Ben Perkins, Assistant Editor, is a reporter with International Trade Today and its sister publications, Trade Law Daily and Export Compliance Daily, where he covers sanctions, court rulings, and other international trade issues. He previously worked as a trade analyst for a Washington D.C. advisory firm. Ben holds a B.A. in English from the University of New Hampshire and an M.A. in International Relations from American University. Ben joined the staff of Warren Communications News in 2022.
The Commerce Department abused its discretion when it rejected Mexican exporter Simec's extension request and refused to accept a late submission during the 2019-20 antidumping duty administrative review on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico, exporter Acerero said in its Aug. 9 reply motion at the Court of International Trade. The motion came in response to a filing from the Rebar Trade Action Coalition (RTAC), which asked the court to uphold Commerce's use of adverse facts available in calculating Simec's AD rate of 66.7% and the all-others rate assigned to exporter Sidertul and Acerero at 33.35% (see 2307110019) (Grupo Acerero v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00202).
Commerce’s remand results involving the inclusion of in-transit mattresses in its quarterly ratio calculation did not satisfy a remand order by the Court of International Trade, antidumping duty respondent Zinus Indonesia said in its Aug. 8 remand comments. The court should remand the matter to Commerce to recalculate Zinus' dumping margin without including the mattresses in-transit, Zinus said (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. U.S., CIT # 21-00277).
CBP's failure to timely release documents in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation deprived importer Phoenix Metal of its right to defend against the agency's allegation that it transshipped in order to avoid paying antidumping and countervailing duties (see 2303030049), Phoenix said in an Aug. 9 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The company said it had no chance to respond to allegations of evasion before "severe enforcement measures" were put in place, adding that CBP's "only purpose" in EAPA investigations "is to operate in the shadows and shun inconveniences like the [Administrative Procedure Act] and due process of law" (Phoenix Metal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00048).
CBP announced an Enforce and Protect Act investigation on whether CIMC Intermodal Equipment (CIE) evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain chassis and subassemblies from China, and imposed interim measures, according to a ruling released Aug. 9.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Aug. 8 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should stay a case concerning an antidumping duty investigation after the termination of a suspension agreement on tomatoes from Mexico while two related cases are being considered at the lower court, Mexican exporter Bioparques de Occidente said in an Aug. 8 motion to stay (Bioparques de Occidente, S.A. de C.V., et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2109).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 9 on AD/CVD proceedings:
CBP incorrectly denied protests seeking retroactive refunds of Section 301 duties for entries of furniture parts and boxes imported from China, importer Store Supply Warehouse said in an Aug. 4 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The protested items consisted of nine entries of hardware racks, three entries of jewelry boxes and 10 entries of showcase parts imported through the Port of Savannah (Store Supply Warehouse v. U.S., CIT # 23-00035).