Jacob Kopnick

The Department of Justice and defendant-intervenor American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance moved to strike part of Chinese cabinet exporter's argument in an antidumping case, claiming the exporter included a new argument in a court filing that was not part of the underlying investigation. In dual April 22 motions to strike in the Court of International Trade, both DOJ and the AKCA said the argument by the exporter, The Ancientree Cabinet Co., over the proper classification of its inputs for wooden cabinets and vanities in selecting surrogate values for an antidumping investigation from a nonmarket economy was not raised during oral argument. A lawyer associated with the case confirmed Ancientree will file a response to the motion to strike.

The Court of International Trade stayed all proceedings in a case against 14 individuals for a scheme to evade antidumping and countervailing duties until criminal charges also levied against eight of the defendants are settled, in an April 22 procedural order. The defendants allegedly evaded duties on off-the-road tires, passenger vehicle and light truck tires and truck and bus tires from China. The case in CIT has the government seeking $20.9 million in penalties for customs fraud and $5.6 million in unpaid duties for the eight individuals with criminal charges, as well as six other defendants and the Houston-based company Winland International, which does business as Super Tire. The Section 1582 penalty case alternatively seeks $12.5 million in penalties and $2.2 million in unpaid duties for gross negligence.

Judge Gary Katzmann denied a motion from solar panel industry groups to expedite discovery of what they believe to be a key petition in a case over the redaction of a tariff exemption for bifacial solar panels in an April 21 order. The plaintiffs asked to get the government defense to produce a “petition from a majority of the representatives of the domestic industry” upon which President Donald Trump supposedly based his decision to withdraw the tariff exemption. In denying the motion, Katzmann also stipulated that the plaintiffs have until May 5 to file their response to the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss the case.

The Court of International Trade's newest judge, Stephen Vaden, issued his first opinion with the court on April 21, dismissing tire importer Strategic Import Supply's challenge of CBP's assessment of countervailing duties on its imports of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. Vaden found that the importer's protest was filed too late, holding the 180-day deadline for protests runs from the date of liquidation, rather than the date CBP received updated assessment instructions from Commerce after Commerce amended rates set in the relevant CV duty administrative review.

CBP's process for carrying out Enforce and Protect Act investigations could eventually be found by the courts to be unconstitutional, trade lawyers Jen Diaz and David Craven of Diaz Trade Law said during an April 21 webinar. The EAPA investigations, which seek to determine if a company evaded antidumping or countervailing duty orders, are mostly secret and do not inform entities if they are being investigated or what evidence stands against them.

Following a Court of International Trade opinion that appeared to question first sale import valuations from non-market economies, the court's observations may not be as disruptive as they first appear, KPMG said in an April 19 analysis. The judge's questioning of whether first sale could be used on non-market economies was non-binding and an issue only lightly explored at the agency level and during litigation, the firm said.

In dueling submissions to the Court of International Trade following oral arguments on April 19, DOJ and Ancientree made their final cases for the best surrogate country pick in the antidumping investigation on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. In a feud over whether Commerce should have picked Malaysia or Romania, the main contention was detailed financial statements versus more comparable producers in quantity and quality of product.

The Department of Justice continued to raise jurisdictional issues in support for a motion to dismiss a challenge from steel exporter Voestalpine USA and importer Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel seeking a refund of Section 232 duties paid on steel entries in the Court of International Trade. In an April 19 filing, the DOJ challenged the jurisdiction of Voestalpine and Bilstein's challenge while pointing out that the plaintiffs are not entitled to a refund on the duties paid since they forgot to complete one key step in the tariff exclusion process -- alerting CBP that the Commerce Department issued an exclusion in the first place.