The Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d statistical test to carry out its differential pricing analysis in rooting out "masked" dumping violates "well-recognized statistical principles," plaintiff HiSteel Co. argued in an Oct. 17 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Commerce's assertions that certain statistical assumptions typically required of the d test are not relevant since it using the entire population of data and not just a sample "is mathematically dishonest," the brief said (HiSteel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00142).
The Commerce Department properly hit antidumping duty respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing with partial adverse facts available, saying Tainai should know how to collect factor of production information from its downstream suppliers, given that the agency was conducting the 33rd review of the AD order, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 20 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The government said Commerce legally deducted Section 301 duties from Tainai's U.S. price and capped Section 301 duty payments (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #22-00038).
The Commerce Department must revisit its countervailing duty rate calculations for the Electricity Tax Act and the Energy Tax Act and its finding that Germany's KAV program is de jure specific, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 12 opinion made public Oct. 20. However, Judge Claire Kelly upheld the remaining points of contention in the case brought by BGH Edelstahl Siegen. including whether Commerce properly initiated the CVD investigation, the finding that the administrative record is complete, and "the determination that the provisions of the Electricity Tax Act and the Energy Tax Act, the EEG and KWKG Reduced Surcharge Programs, the ETS Additional Free Emissions Allowances, and the CO2 Compensation Program are countervailable subsidies."
It's legal for importer Keirton USA to enter marijuana-related drug paraphernalia into Washington state, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 20 opinion. Building on the trade court's similar Eteros decision, Judge Claire Kelly said Washington's repeal of past restrictions on marijuana-related drug paraphernalia constitutes an authorization of the manufacture, possession and distribution of these goods, so that importing these goods qualifies for the exemption under the Federal Mail Order Drug Paraphernalia Control Act of 1986. Kelly, like Judge Gary Katzmann in the Eteros decision, relied on the Supreme Court case Murphy v. NCAA to construe the definition of "authorization."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should not stay a case led by PrimeSource Building Products pending resolution of another action at the appellate court, the U.S. said in an Oct. 17 reply brief, arguing a stay is "based on nothing but pure speculation as to" PrimeSource's desired outcome of the separate matter. The "unjustifiable delay" that would stem from the stay would cause "inherent harm" to the government, so the stay should be denied, the U.S. said (PrimeSource Building Products Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2128).
A September Court of International Trade decision finding that the U.S. cannot seize or forfeit imports of federally deemed "drug paraphernalia" whose delivery, possession and manufacture were made legal in Washington state may not be as applicable to other states as certain importers would like, trade lawyers told Trade Law Daily. Since the opinion rests heavily on the precise language of the Washington state law legalizing marijuana, the trade court's ruling will only make the most difference in states with a similar law, one attorney said.
CBP's Denial of PSCs Establishes Jurisdiction to Impose Section 232 Exclusions, Appellants Tell CAFC
CBP's denial of plaintiff-appellant Borusan Mannesmann's post summary corrections (PSCs) and administrative refund request constitutes a protestable decision, meaning Borusan had jurisdiction to seek Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions, Borusan and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline argued in an Oct. 17 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellants also said that Federal Circuit precedent established that CBP's denial of a timely request for a refund of previously paid duties can constitute a protestable decision, and while these precedential opinions do not concern unliquidated entries as is the case with Borusan, there is nothing limiting these decisions (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2097).
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 18 stopped the International Trade Commission from disclosing the business proprietary information (BPI) of a group of plaintiffs led by Amsted Rail Co. Judge Gary Katzmann granted the plaintiffs' move for a temporary restraining order in an action concerning whether the ITC violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the plaintiffs' 5th Amendment due process rights by giving its former lawyer access to its BPI in his new role as counsel to parties with adverse interests to ARC (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).
An argument from apellees, including the Solar Energy Industries Association, in a Federal Circuit case that the safeguard statute implicitly limits the president to make "trade-liberalizing" measures relies on a "strained reading of the statutory contest," by placing undue emphasis on the fact that section 2254(b)(1)(B) lets the president find that the domestic industry "has made" a positive adjustment to import competition, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 17 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This position "relies on an illusory distinction between complete and ongoing adjustment," the brief said (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1392).
Laboratory equipment distributor Intertech Trading Corp. was sentenced on Oct. 17 to pay a total fine of $140,000 for failing to file export information on shipments to Russia and Ukraine, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Hampshire announced. Intertech was ordered to pay the maximum fine of $10,000 per count for 14 counts of failure to file the export information required.