R. Kenton Musgrave

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatory

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.

business & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatorytaxes

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.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved a challenge by Chinese producers of chlorinated isocyanurates to the U.S. Department of Commerce's 2014-2015 administrative review of an antidumping duty order, specifically contesting the selection of Mexico as the surrogate country for valuing factors of production and the use of certain surrogate financial statements. The plaintiffs sought judgment on the agency record under the court's jurisdiction for reviewing such determinations. The court denied the motion, holding that Commerce's choice of Mexico was supported by substantial evidence because it offered sufficiently contemporaneous data on key inputs like labor, electricity, and water that could be adjusted for inflation, and that the selected financial statements were appropriate. The decision emphasized that the agency's methodology complied with statutory requirements for selecting surrogate values from countries at comparable economic development levels that are significant producers of comparable merchandise.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a challenge by Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in the 2014-2015 administrative review of an antidumping duty order on steel nails from the United Arab Emirates. Commerce determined that the mandatory respondent lacked viable home or third-country market data and selected financial statements from a Thai nail producer (L.S. Industry) as a surrogate for calculating constructed value profit and selling expenses under 19 U.S.C. §1677b(e)(2)(B)(iii), rejecting statements from an Omani affiliate due to insufficient evidence it produced goods rather than services. The plaintiff argued for the affiliate's data as a superior match based on identical operations and products. The Court of International Trade denied the motion for judgment, holding that Commerce's selection was supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law.

business & regulatory

This case before the U.S. Court of International Trade involved challenges by U.S. and Chinese manufacturers to the Department of Commerce's 2013-2014 administrative review of an antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts from China. Plaintiffs contested several aspects of Commerce's determinations, including the deduction of irrecoverable value-added tax from export prices, surrogate valuations for inputs like nitrogen, oxygen, and labor, calculation of truck freight, treatment of graphite plates, selection of financial statements, and the agency's refusal to accept a late withdrawal of a review request. The court found that an intervening judicial decision had altered the legal basis for Commerce's denial of the untimely withdrawal request under the prior 'extraordinary circumstances' standard. It therefore remanded the matter to Commerce for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including reconsideration of that denial in light of the new precedent.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a challenge by the Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s administrative review determinations on antidumping duties for diamond sawblades and parts from China, as published in 2013. After an initial remand, a partial affirmance and remand by the Federal Circuit on the issue of the timeliness of the plaintiff’s targeted dumping allegation, and a further remand to Commerce, the agency conducted a targeted dumping analysis but concluded that no changes to its margin calculations were warranted. The parties then submitted a joint status report indicating no further briefing was needed and agreeing that the final remand results should be sustained. The court therefore sustained Commerce’s Final Remand Redetermination dated January 18, 2018.

business & regulatory

The case concerned the proper tariff classification under the HTSUS of certain fiber optic Value Added Modules imported by ADC Telecommunications from Mexico. The importer argued for duty-free treatment under subheading 8517.62.00 as machines for the reception, conversion, and transmission of data, while Customs classified the goods under subheading 9013.80.90 as other optical appliances and instruments subject to 4.5 percent duty. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court of International Trade held that the VAMs contain optical elements that alter infrared light in ways matching the definition of optical elements in the Explanatory Notes to heading 9013 and Additional U.S. Note 3 to chapter 90, and that chapter 90 expressly excludes such optical goods from classification in chapter 85. The court therefore denied the plaintiff's motion, granted the government's cross-motion, and upheld Customs' classification.

business & regulatorytaxes

The case involved the U.S. government seeking collection of unpaid customs duties totaling about $40,000 and penalties of about $131,000 from the corporate defendant Chavez Import & Export, Inc., for misclassifying imported dairy products on entry documents filed with Customs and Border Protection over multiple shipments in 2005-2006. The plaintiff had already obtained summary judgment against the individual defendant, and moved for default judgment against the corporation, which had been administratively dissolved, remained unrepresented, and never answered the complaint or otherwise defended. The court granted the motion, awarding the claimed duties, a civil penalty under 19 U.S.C. §1592, pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs, reasoning that the defendant's default under USCIT Rule 55 established liability and that the record supported the amounts sought.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case from the U.S. Court of International Trade concerns La Molisana S.p.A.'s challenge to two aspects of the Department of Commerce's eighteenth administrative review of antidumping duties on certain dry pasta from Italy: the requirement to report pasta product shapes strictly according to a fixed classification list without variance and the application of a differential pricing analysis that led to using an average-to-transaction methodology. The court remanded the matter to Commerce with instructions to reconsider the plaintiff's arguments on the speed/shape methodology applied to the record facts and to supplement the record with a full explanation addressing the plaintiff's case brief comments on the differential pricing determination. Jurisdiction was based on 19 U.S.C. §1516a and 28 U.S.C. §1581(c), with review under the substantial evidence standard. The core reasoning emphasized that an agency must articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made, and that it cannot simply deem a higher rate more accurate without addressing raised concerns.

business & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between Meyer Corporation and U.S. Customs and Border Protection over the denial of duty-free preferential treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences for imported cookware sets from Thailand that contained some components manufactured in China. The court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on whether the presence of the non-Thai parts disqualified the sets from GSP benefits and whether the goods could be appraised using first-sale transaction value rather than another method. It granted the plaintiff's motion in part, holding that Thai-origin components remained eligible for GSP treatment while Chinese-origin lids did not, and denied relief on the first-sale valuation issue. The court also denied the defendant's motion to dismiss one contested entry and found disputed facts remaining on other aspects of the valuation claim.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by Chinese copper tube manufacturers to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review on seamless refined copper pipe and tube from China. Following an earlier court remand for further proceedings, Commerce submitted its redetermination results to the court. The parties then filed a joint status report effectively requesting that the court sustain those results. Upon review of the record, the court ordered that Commerce's Final Results of Redetermination be sustained.

business & regulatory

This case from the U.S. Court of International Trade concerned the seventh administrative review of antidumping duties on chlorinated isocyanurates imported from China, involving challenges by producers Kangtai, Jiheng, and Arch-Jiheng to the Department of Commerce's remand redetermination. The court addressed five issues: selection of the Philippines as the primary surrogate country for valuing factors of production, adjustments to financial ratios for labor costs, use of ammonium sulfate as a by-product offset, valuation of ammonium chloride, and downward adjustment of U.S. price for unrefunded value-added tax on exports. Commerce's determinations largely followed its prior reasoning from the sixth review and were defended by domestic petitioners Clearon and Occidental. The court sustained the remand results in full, finding Commerce's surrogate selections, calculations, offsets, valuations, and statutory interpretation of the VAT adjustment (under 19 U.S.C. §1677a) to be reasonable and supported by the record under applicable standards like Chevron deference.

business & regulatorytaxesprocedure

This case from the U.S. Court of International Trade involved a challenge to the Department of Commerce's second redetermination on the sixth administrative review of an antidumping duty order covering chlorinated isocyanurates imported from China during 2010-2011. The court sustained Commerce's remand results, which recalculated normal value and dumping margins for the Chinese producers using surrogate values from the Philippines as the primary country and Indian data for hydrogen gas and chlorine inputs. Commerce also adjusted the by-product offset methodology for ammonia gas and sulfuric acid and selected import data for valuing urea while revising selling, general, and administrative expense calculations. The court found these determinations supported by substantial evidence on the record and reasonably explained, rejecting arguments from defendant-intervenors for further changes.

business & regulatory

The case involves a dispute over the valuation of imported cookware under the 'first sale' rule for customs purposes, where the plaintiff challenged the relevance of financial documents from its parent holding company in determining whether the transaction value between related parties was valid under 19 C.F.R. §152.103(l)(1)(iii). The court addressed the plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude those documents, which turned on the interpretation of the term 'firm' in the Customs regulation governing related buyer and seller transactions. The court denied the motion in limine without prejudice, holding that such a request to test the sufficiency of evidence or claims is not properly raised through a motion in limine but instead requires a motion for partial summary judgment. The ruling noted that the relevancy of the documents depends on the regulatory interpretation, which is a legal question better suited for summary judgment procedures under the court's rules, and it allowed the plaintiff to amend and consolidate its existing summary judgment motion with extended briefing limits.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned the proper tariff classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States for 144 motorhomes that Pleasure-Way Industries imported after exporting cargo vans to Canada for conversion. Customs classified the vehicles under HTSUS subheading 8703.33.00 as motor vehicles for the transport of persons, imposing a 2.5% duty, while the importer sought duty-free treatment under subheading 9802.00.50 for articles exported for repairs or alterations and returned under NAFTA. The Court of International Trade denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion, ruling that the Canadian work did not qualify as a repair or alteration because it transformed the vehicles into commercially different motorhomes by replacing cargo space with living facilities. The court reasoned that the essential characteristics of the exported goods were destroyed and a new article was created, so the goods could not qualify for the claimed duty exemption.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a challenge by the Rebar Trade Action Coalition to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final determination that steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from Turkey was sold at less than fair value, along with related calculations of duty drawback adjustments under Turkish tax and import regimes, the date of sale for pricing purposes, and alloy content cost allocations for respondent producers Icdas and Habas. After an initial remand, Commerce issued redetermination results yielding margins of 3.64% for Icdas, de minimis for Habas, and 3.64% for all others. The Court of International Trade reviewed those results and concluded that further remand was required for additional explanation or reconsideration of the duty drawback adjustment methodology, including treatment of the KKDF tax under the Inward Processing Regime, and the allocation of alloy costs to ensure they do not exceed total incurred costs. The court sustained Commerce's approach on the date of sale but found the record required more precise handling of cost adjustments where margins were near the threshold for an affirmative dumping determination.

business & regulatoryprocedure