Importer Atlas Power said April 15 in a reply to a government cross-motion for judgment that “years” after entering its merchandise, the United States was suddenly offering “a recently developed explanation” as to why its products, computer parts, had been assessed Section 301 duties (Atlas Power v. United States, CIT # 23-00084).
The Court of International Trade in an April 22 confidential decision remanded the International Trade Commission's injury determination on phosphate fertilizer from Morocco and Russia. A docket entry from the court said on remand the ITC can "take new evidence, reconsider existing evidence, or take any other action allowed by its procedures" to reach a conclusion supported by substantial evidence (OCP v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00219).
The Montana Farmers Union moved to intervene in a case brought by four members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe challenging various trade action taken by President Donald Trump in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. The agriculture trade group said it qualifies for intervention as a "matter of right," alternatively arguing that the court should permit the group to intervene even if it doesn't have the right to intervene (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D. Mont. # 4:25-00026).
Four wheel exporters will appeal a February Court of International Trade decision sustaining the inclusion of trailer wheels made of Chinese rims and Thai discs in the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on steel trailer wheels from China. Filing four notices of appeal, exporters Asia Wheel Co., Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel, Trailstar and Dexter Distribution Group f/k/a Textrail said they will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the case, CIT Judge Gary Katzmann said that Commerce didn't illegally expand the scope of the orders since the agency left open the possibility in the original AD/CVD investigations to discuss mixed-origin wheels in a later scope ruling (see 2502210039) (Asia Wheel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00096).
The Court of International Trade ruled April 22 that filling out a single mandatory importer questionnaire response at the beginning of an International Trade Commission injury investigation isn’t enough for an importer to establish itself as a party to the proceeding.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importers van Gelder Inc. and Baker Hughes Pressure Control each dropped their customs suit at the Court of International Trade last week. Van Gelder had filed suit to challenge the classification of its vinyl tiles floor covering, seeking an exclusion from Section 301 China tariffs (see 2405060033). Meanwhile, Baker Hughes had launched its case to claim that its steel parts of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7326.90.8588, dutiable at 2.9%, should be classified under subheadings 8481.90.9085 and 8431.43.4000, free of duty (see 2306300068). Counsel for both importers didn't respond to requests for comment (van Gelder Inc. v. United States, CIT # 21-00160) (Baker Hughes Pressure Control v. United States, CIT # 23-00137).
The Court of International Trade on April 19 denied a group of Canadian lumber exporters' bid to have the court explicitly state CBP's obligation to refund countervailing duty cash deposits established by the court in a previous decision. Judge Mark Barnett said the exporters haven't shown that there was any clerical or other mistake in the court's previous order and that "the equities do not favor granting" this requested relief.
CIT Says Several Components, Finishing Work for Sinks Shouldn't Have Been Included in Dutiable Value
The value of sink components and finishing work that either (1) wasn’t covered under the relevant antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders, or, (2) didn’t originate in China, shouldn’t have been included in the sinks’ dutiable value because the orders' language didn't specifically include them, Court of International Trade Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled April 21. However, packaging costs should have been, she said.
In a sur-reply supporting its motion for judgment (see 2410220026), surety company Aegis Security Insurance said it was responding to several new arguments the U.S. raised in a reply defending CBP’s 2016 attempt to collect unpaid duties that had been outstanding since 2002 (see 2503210069) (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance, CIT # 22-00327).