The U.S.'s case looking to collect on a bond due 14 years ago is prohibited under the doctrine of impairment of suretyship, surety Aegis Security Insurance Company argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Since CBP "unreasonably delayed" in looking to collect on a bond that liquidated in 2006, interest liability was created "that was entirely unnecessary, and impaired Defendant's rights against third parties." CBP's action barred any possible recourse against the main obligor and its reinsurer, so by the time Aegis was billed, "the importer was nowhere to be found," necessitating a finding of impairment of suretyship, the brief said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).
By deducting the value of Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) -- tradeable credits issued by the EPA -- from antidumping duty respondent Wilmar Trading's export price, the Commerce Department "penalizes Wilmar for having to navigate different regulatory regimes for biodiesel in the United States and Indonesia," Wilmar argued in comments on Commerce's remand results at the Court of International Trade. The result is an arbitrarily inflated dumping margin derived from Commerce's approach, which is separate from Wilmar's "actual commercial experience," the brief said (Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd. v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00121).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Oct. 28 order consolidated two appeals of a lower court opinion dismissing importer Dr. Bronner's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over xanthan gum imports, dismissing GLoB Energy Corp.'s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denying the remaining motions for judgment on the agency record. One case was appealed from the Court of International Trade by Ascencion Chemicals, UMD Solutions and Crude Chem Technology, while the other was brought by GLoB (All God One Faith, dba Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps v. United States, Fed. Cir. #23-1078).
CBP misclassified Home Depot U.S.A.'s imports of residential door knobs packaged with at least one deadbolt, Home Depot argued in two Oct. 31 complaints at the Court of International Trade. The retail giant originally launched the cases in 2014, just now bringing the complaints to the court to vie for a change in classification for the door knobs under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, which would see the duty rates for the imports drop from 5.7% to 3.9% (Home Depot U.S.A. v. United States, CIT #14-00122, #14-00123).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 31 order dismissed a customs case after counsel for plaintiff Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co.'s second attempt to withdraw from the proceeding, given Hongteo's failure to respond to its counsel (Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co. v. United States, CIT #20-03776).
The Court of International Trade should dismiss a case challenging several Commerce Department actions around the antidumping duty investigation on tomatoes from Mexico, which was subject to suspension agreements, since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has already ruled on the large remaining questions in the case, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 28 reply brief. The plaintiffs, led by Bioparques de Occidente, have not conformed to the Federal Circuit opinion, and their claims are "jurisdictionally defective," the brief said (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00204).
There is no basis for the Court of International Trade to reconsider its decision to uphold the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis (DPA) to root out "masked" dumping or its inclusion of respondent SeAH Steel Corp.'s inventory valuation losses in its general and administrative (G&A) expense calculation, the U.S. said. Replying to SeAH's motion for rehearing at CIT, the government argued that since Commerce has found on remand in the key Stupp Corp. v. U.S. case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit called into question the use of the Cohen's d test that the agency properly used the test, there are no grounds to contest CIT's move to uphold the DPA (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT #19-00086).
'Major Questions Doctrine' Does Not to Apply to Section 301 Exclusion Case, US Tells Federal Circuit
The "major questions doctrine" established in the Supreme Court decision West Virginia v. EPA does not apply to the question of whether a protest needed to be filed with CBP to retroactively apply Section 301 duty exclusions, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 28 brief opposing a motion for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Even if the major questions doctrine did apply, CBP acted in line with the clear authority granted by Congress in collecting Section 301 duties from plaintiff-appellants ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, the brief said (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
The U.S. is using a spat over whether surety company American Home Assurance Co. can use a laches defense in a customs penalty case "as a red herring" to turn the Court of International Trade's attention away from the surety's statute of limitations defense, AHAC argued in an Oct. 27 reply brief. The matter is a "straight-forward statute of limitations case" since the U.S. brought the action seeking uncollected antidumping duties more than six years after the right of action began, and any attack on the defendant's affirmative defense of laches is merely a distraction, the brief said (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., CIT #20-00175).
CBP's decision not to pay out interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, on collected antidumping and countervailing duties violates the plain language of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, groups of plaintiff-appellants argued in two opening briefs in two different cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. One brief, penned by appellants led by Hilex Poly Co. and American Drew, said that even if the law was ambiguous, CBP has failed to exercise any authority "in a way that deserves deference" (Hilex Poly Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2106) (Adee Honey Farms v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2105).