The case concerned whether six entries of stainless steel plate from Belgium imported by Arbed Americas were deemed liquidated by operation of law under 19 U.S.C. §1504(d) following administrative reviews of antidumping and countervailing duty orders and related litigation. The court granted judgment for the plaintiff on cross-motions for summary judgment, ruling that the entries liquidated by operation of law in 2006 at the rates specified in Commerce's earlier instructions. The core reasoning was that a 2006 court order in related litigation provided valid notice removing the suspension of liquidation for Arbed's specific entries (which were excluded from an injunction covering other entries), triggering the six-month period under the statute, after which Customs' later 2010 affirmative liquidations had no legal effect.
The case involved Northern Tool & Equipment Company challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection's denial of a protest regarding the assessment of antidumping duties on hand trucks imported from China during a specific period. CBP applied the high PRC-wide entity rate of 383.60 percent rather than the lower 26.49 percent rate for a particular exporter, following instructions from the Department of Commerce. The court held that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1581(i)(4) and reviewed the matter under the Administrative Procedure Act's arbitrary and capricious standard. It concluded that CBP properly acted in its ministerial capacity by implementing Commerce's liquidation instructions and that the agency's determination of the applicable exporter and rate was supported by the record and rationally explained.
The case involved a challenge by the Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final results in an antidumping duty administrative review concerning diamond sawblades from China for the 2012-2013 period. After two remands, Commerce adjusted its build-up methodology for certain production costs and incorporated additional financial statements in calculating surrogate financial ratios. With no objections filed to the second remand results, the Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s redetermination.
This case from the U.S. Court of International Trade involves a challenge by the Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition to the Department of Commerce’s 2014-15 administrative review of an antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts from China. The plaintiff contested Commerce’s refusal to apply adverse facts available regarding a respondent’s record-keeping, its selection of Thai import statistics as surrogate values for certain production factors like copper powder, and the resulting margin calculations for separate respondents. The court reviewed the agency record under the substantial evidence and accordance with law standards and determined that Commerce had not adequately explained its surrogate value selections, instead relying primarily on regulatory preferences without sufficient analysis of alternative data from other countries. As a result, the court remanded the surrogate value determinations and related margin recalculations to Commerce for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
This case concerns the tariff classification of roughly 10,000 automotive replacement and repair parts and tools that Porsche Motorsport North America, Inc. exported from the United States to Canada in 2014 to support Porsche race teams and then re-imported. The importer claimed duty-free entry under HTSUS subheading 9801.00.85.00 for professional tools of the trade temporarily exported and returned, while U.S. Customs and Border Protection classified the merchandise under various dutiable HTSUS provisions and assessed duties, fees, and interest totaling over $122,000 across three entries. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion in part and denied it in part, holding that material facts remain in dispute over which items were actually sold in Canada rather than returned, whether the items qualify as tools of the trade, and the temporary nature of their export and use abroad, so the classification issues cannot be resolved without trial.
This case from the U.S. Court of International Trade involved a challenge by La Molisana S.p.A. to the Department of Commerce's 18th administrative review of an antidumping duty order on certain pasta imported from Italy. The court had previously remanded two issues: Commerce's differential pricing analysis used in calculating dumping margins and its denial of the company's request to reclassify certain pasta shapes on the agency's model-match list based on production line speeds. On remand, Commerce reaffirmed its original determinations, citing consistency in methodology, lack of supporting evidence for the plaintiff's arguments, and risks of manipulation in sales comparisons. The court sustained those results, finding them supported by substantial evidence and prior precedent upholding similar approaches to pricing analysis.