The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated April 13 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):
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.
A court order granting an importer Section 232 exclusions for tin mill products would be "extraordinary relief," and the Court of International Trade should instead remand the denied exclusions to the Commerce Department for further consideration, DOJ said in an April 11 response brief at the Court of International Trade. While DOJ argued that Commerce correctly denied six Section 232 exclusion requests, it seeks to reconsider another two, admitting that some of Seneca's arguments warrant further consideration (Seneca Foods Corporation v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).
The Court of International Trade on April 11 upheld the Commerce Department's final results of its 2019-2020 antidumping duty administrative review on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from China, in the face of challenges to Commerce’s surrogate value selection raised by Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated April 11 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):
Commerce erred when it treated Section 232 duties as "U.S. import duties" instead of "special" tariffs in its antidumping duty calculation in an antidumping duty review on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey, said Kaptan and Colakoglu, respondents in the review, in an April 10 complaint. Kaptan and Colakoglu also said Commerce incorrectly relied on invoice dates as the dates of U.S. sale rather than contract dates (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi Ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 23-00059).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated April 10 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 following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's final results of its 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from China. Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products raised several challenges to Commerce’s surrogate value selection that Judge Mark Barnett found unconvincing. The court did not address whether the surrogate data Commerce used was the best available but only "whether a reasonable mind could conclude that Commerce chose the best available information," Barnett said in his April 11 opinion. "Although Commerce’s explanation is not as thorough as it could be, the court can discern the agency’s path of reasoning," Barnett said.
The Court of International Trade on April 11 ordered the Commerce Department to redo parts of an antidumping duty administrative review on glycine from Japan. Judge Stephen Vaden remanded the final results of the review to Commerce for the agency to reconsider its decision that the "compensation for payment expense" was properly categorized as a general and administrative expense. The judge sustained Commerce's decision to use generally accepted accounting principles-compliant research and development cost records instead of trial balances was supported by law, as well as the agency's finding that respondent Nagase waited too long in finding its own assessment rate error.