Judith Morgenstern Barzilay

This case involved Digidesign, Inc.'s challenge to U.S. Customs and Border Protection's classification of its Control 24 and 002 Factory audio consoles under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. Customs classified the imported machines as electrical machines and apparatus under subheading 8543.89.96 (later renumbered to 8543.70.96), carrying a 2.6% ad valorem duty. Digidesign argued for classification as units of automatic data processing machines under Heading 8471, which would have a 0% duty rate. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court of International Trade denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendant's, holding that the consoles' preamp, line sub-mixer, and control room monitoring functions meant they could not be classified under Heading 8471 pursuant to Chapter 84 Note 5(E) and instead fell under the residual provision of Heading 8543.

business & regulatorytaxes

The case involved JBF RAK LLC challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results from an administrative review of antidumping duties on polyethylene terephthalate film from the United Arab Emirates, specifically Commerce's use of zeroing methodology to calculate duties. The plaintiff contended that this approach conflicted with earlier Federal Circuit precedents. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ruling that the Federal Circuit's decision in Union Steel v. United States had resolved the issue by upholding Commerce's authority to apply zeroing in administrative reviews based on contextual differences from investigations. The court determined that the precedent was binding and that the plaintiff had not adequately distinguished the case to allow review on the merits.

business & regulatory

The case involved JBF RAK LLC's challenge to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film from the United Arab Emirates for the period November 2010 through October 2011. JBF RAK raised multiple claims, including that Commerce unlawfully applied its targeted dumping methodology, improperly considered petitioners' allegations, issued an untimely post-preliminary determination, failed to account for certain pricing facts, misapplied its model matching rules, and unlawfully used its 15-day liquidation policy. The U.S. Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's final results in full. The court held that Commerce's determinations were supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law under the applicable standard of review, and it deemed several arguments waived for failure to properly develop them under the Chevron framework or address contrary precedent.

business & regulatory

The case concerned Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S.'s challenge to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Turkey for the period 2010-2011. Borusan disputed Commerce's determination that it had engaged in targeted dumping and Commerce's use of an average-to-transaction comparison methodology in calculating duties. The U.S. Court of International Trade reviewed the agency record under the substantial evidence standard and considered the statutory requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(d)(1)(B). The court held that the statute does not mandate an inquiry into a respondent's intent or commercial justifications for pricing patterns, and it sustained the Nails test as a reasonable basis for finding targeted dumping. Accordingly, the court upheld Commerce's Final Results.

business & regulatory

This case concerned Ford Motor Company's challenge to U.S. Customs and Border Protection's denial of its NAFTA post-importation duty refund claims under 19 U.S.C. § 1520(d), where Customs refused to waive the requirement to present certificates of origin that Ford had omitted when filing traditional claims (though Customs routinely waives the same requirement for claims filed through the Reconciliation Program). After the Federal Circuit remanded for an explanation of the differing waiver practices, Customs stated on remand that the disparity resulted from the reasonable application of two distinct statutory schemes governing the separate filing processes. The Court of International Trade reviewed the agency's interpretation under the Chevron framework and sustained Customs' Remand Results, concluding that the explanation constituted a permissible construction of the statute that preserved the port director's discretion to grant or deny waivers under the traditional process while allowing a centralized approach under reconciliation. The court therefore upheld the denial of Ford's claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a motion for reconsideration filed by Consolidated Plaintiff Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group, Ltd. in a U.S. Court of International Trade proceeding challenging the Department of Commerce's antidumping duty determination for certain chemical imports from China. Commerce had assigned an above de minimis separate rate to Jiangsu and other separate-rate respondents by selecting the rate given to a non-cooperating mandatory respondent. The court previously upheld that approach based on the limited pricing data in the administrative record. Jiangsu argued that the court had overlooked quantity-and-value data and other information that would support a zero percent rate, but the court denied reconsideration. It held that Jiangsu was attempting to relitigate already-decided issues, that the statute does not automatically award the cooperating respondent's de minimis rate to separate-rate respondents, and that the record did not justify Jiangsu's proposed alternative calculation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a challenge to the U.S. Department of Commerce's first administrative review of a countervailing duty order on citric acid and citrate salts from China, focusing on whether respondent companies received subsidies in the form of steam coal and sulfuric acid sold for less than adequate remuneration. After an initial remand, Commerce explained that the steam coal program lacked the required specificity to be countervailable and that its selected world market benchmark prices for sulfuric acid were comparable and appropriate under the regulations. Plaintiffs contested the specificity finding for coal, while consolidated plaintiffs contested the sulfuric acid benchmarks. The U.S. Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's remand results, finding both determinations supported by substantial evidence on the record and consistent with applicable law and prior agency practice.

business & regulatory

The case involved JBF RAK LLC challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in the first administrative review of an antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film from the United Arab Emirates. JBF RAK contested Commerce's use of zeroing in calculating dumping margins, its 15-day rule for liquidation instructions, and its determination of home market sales for the foreign like product. The court sustained Commerce's determinations, finding them supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law after the Federal Circuit upheld zeroing in a related case, and noting that the plaintiff's proposed alternatives for model-matching failed to meet statutory requirements for contemporaneity and cost of production.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by NSK Corporation and other plaintiffs to the United States International Trade Commission's (ITC) determinations regarding material injury to the domestic industry from certain imports. Following a decision by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court of International Trade vacated the ITC's negative material injury findings from its third and fourth remand results. The court reinstated the ITC's earlier affirmative material injury determination from the second remand results. The decision was issued pursuant to the Federal Circuit's mandate after its ruling in NSK Corp. v. ITC.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by Chinese chemical producers to the U.S. Department of Commerce's redetermination of a separate antidumping duty rate for Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group following a Federal Circuit remand in an investigation of 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1,1-Diphosphonic Acid imports. Commerce abandoned its prior simple average approach, instead drawing inferences from an uncooperative mandatory respondent's data to find that the separate rate would exceed de minimis, but declined to compute an exact rate because the relevant entries had already been liquidated. The Court of International Trade sustained the redetermination, holding that the revised methodology was reasonable under the statute governing non-market economy separate rates and that further calculation was unnecessary given the liquidation. The court rejected arguments based on res judicata and the scope of the remand order, noting that the Federal Circuit had directed only reconsideration of the approach rather than a specific numerical result.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Alcan Food Packaging challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection's denial of protests regarding the tariff classification of its imported Flexalcon material, a laminated product consisting of plastic film layers and aluminum foil used to package ready-to-eat military and commercial meals. Customs classified the merchandise under HTSUS subheading 3921.90.40 as flexible plastic film subject to a 4.2% ad valorem duty, rejecting Alcan's proposed classification under subheading 7607.20.50 as aluminum foil, which is duty-free. The Court of International Trade granted summary judgment to the United States after finding no genuine disputes of material fact, concluding that the product's essential character was plastic because the multiple plastic layers provided its primary physical and functional properties as packaging. The court reasoned that the lamination did not constitute a mere surface treatment or backing of aluminum foil under Heading 7607, as the plastic dominated and Flexalcon could not reasonably be described as aluminum foil.

business & regulatory

This case involved former administrative employees of Weather Shield Manufacturing, a door and window producer, who sought Trade Adjustment Assistance benefits under the Trade Act of 1974 after losing their jobs between 2008 and 2009. The Department of Labor repeatedly denied the claims, finding insufficient evidence that increased imports or a shift in production abroad contributed importantly to the separations. After multiple remands, the court reviewed Labor's final determination on the agency record and applied the substantial evidence standard. The court sustained the denial, concluding that Labor adequately investigated sales data adjustments and customer import purchases, and that the record showed no qualifying shift or import-related impact under 19 U.S.C. § 2272.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a challenge by U.S. citric acid producers (Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, and Tate & Lyle) and Chinese producers (RZBC companies) to the Department of Commerce's final results in its first administrative review of a countervailing duty order on citric acid and citrate salts from China. The U.S. Court of International Trade assessed whether Commerce's determinations were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law under the Chevron framework. The court granted the motions for judgment on the agency record in part and denied them in part, remanding the matter to Commerce for a clearer explanation of its conclusion on the countervailability of steam coal and to address the impact of different sulfuric acid grades when calculating a world market benchmark price. It sustained Commerce's remaining determinations on issues such as creditworthiness and other subsidies.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case concerns a challenge by Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co., Ltd. to the U.S. Department of Commerce's calculation of an antidumping duty separate rate assigned to the company as a non-mandatory respondent in an investigation of narrow woven ribbons from China. Commerce had selected two mandatory respondents, one receiving an adverse facts available rate of 247.65% and the other a de minimis rate of 0%, then applied a simple average of 123.83% to Bestpak and other separate rate applicants after Bestpak demonstrated independence from government control. Following an initial remand, Commerce used quantity and value questionnaire data to estimate average unit values and confirm that the rate reasonably reflected Bestpak's potential dumping margin. The court sustained the Remand Results, finding the calculation consistent with the statute and not unreasonable given the limited administrative record and the company's decision not to seek a voluntary individual review.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved U.S. domestic producers challenging the Department of Commerce's final results in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from China. The plaintiffs contested Commerce's exclusion of certain surrogate company financial statements from its financial ratio calculations on the grounds that they were tainted by subsidies. The Court of International Trade denied the plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the agency record and sustained the Final Results. The court found that Commerce's decision was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence under the applicable standard of review, and that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by not raising certain arguments before the agency.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned Ford Motor Company's challenge to U.S. Customs and Border Protection's denial of post-importation claims for duty refunds on Canadian automotive parts under 19 U.S.C. § 1520(d) and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Ford had electronically filed its refund claims within one year of importation but submitted the required certificates of origin after the one-year deadline. Customs denied the claims as untimely, and Ford argued that a general Customs regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 10.112, permitted late filing of the certificates. On cross-motions for summary judgment following remand from the Federal Circuit, the Court of International Trade granted judgment to the United States, holding that the statute and specific NAFTA regulations impose a strict one-year limit on certificate submission that § 10.112 cannot override. The court reviewed the matter de novo and found no genuine issue of material fact on the timeliness issue.

business & regulatorytaxesprocedure

The case concerned a motion for a writ of mandamus filed by plaintiffs NSK Corporation and others against the U.S. Department of Commerce in an ongoing antidumping duty dispute over ball bearings from the United Kingdom and Japan. After the International Trade Commission issued negative injury determinations that led to revocation of the underlying orders, plaintiffs sought to compel Commerce to direct Customs to terminate suspension of liquidation for post-determination entries and to refund related cash deposits with interest. The Court of International Trade denied the motion, holding that no conclusive court decision existed to trigger those actions, that precedent required continued suspension of liquidation pending final resolution, and that plaintiffs possessed statutory alternative remedies upon a favorable appellate outcome.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a challenge by Chinese exporter Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co., Ltd. to the U.S. Department of Commerce's calculation of an antidumping duty separate rate margin for narrow woven ribbons from China. Commerce had averaged a de minimis rate from one mandatory respondent with an adverse facts available rate from the other non-cooperating respondent. The court held that this averaging methodology is consistent with law but found that the agency failed to provide substantial evidence supporting the specific rate assigned to the plaintiff in this instance. Accordingly, the court remanded the matter to Commerce for further explanation or recalculation of the separate rate.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned Ocean Duke Corporation's challenge to enhanced continuous entry bond requirements imposed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on importers of shrimp subject to antidumping duties. The company sought judicial review of Customs' refusal to release and replace five such bonds, arguing that its claim accrued only upon the agency's April 2011 denial of its voluntary request. The court held that the two-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2636(i) barred the action because the underlying bond determinations occurred years earlier and the later administrative filings were permissive remedies that did not toll the period or create a new claim. Accordingly, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim for redressable relief under Rule 12(b)(5) rather than for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and denied the plaintiff's summary-judgment motion as moot.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a motion by defendant-intervenor The Timken Company to stay the court's prior judgment sustaining the U.S. International Trade Commission's negative injury determination on antidumping duty orders covering certain merchandise from Japan and the United Kingdom, pending appeal to the Federal Circuit. Timken argued that it would suffer irreparable harm in a future sunset review without the orders, that revocation would violate the statutory scheme, and that the public interest supported a stay. The court denied the motion after applying the four-factor test for a stay, concluding that Timken had not shown actual irreparable harm, a fair chance of success on the merits, consistency with the public interest under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(d)(2), or a favorable balance of hardships. The court therefore vacated its temporary stay and ordered the Department of Commerce to revoke the orders and implement the April 20, 2011 judgment.

business & regulatory