This case involves a challenge by Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Co., Ltd., an exporter of pencils from China, to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review on certain cased pencils from the PRC. The plaintiff argued that the review was improperly initiated because the requesting party, Dixon Ticonderoga Company, did not adequately demonstrate it was a domestic interested party as a U.S. manufacturer of pencils during the relevant period. Commerce determined that Dixon's certification as an interested party was sufficient and unsupported by contrary evidence on the record. The court remanded the matter to Commerce, finding that the agency failed to adequately explain how the certification addressed the plaintiff's arguments or to articulate a rational connection between the facts and its decision under the substantial evidence standard. The court did not reach the issue of whether Shandong deserved a separate rate.
The case involved Kyocera Solar challenging the International Trade Commission's injury determination in an antidumping investigation concerning crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwan and China. Kyocera contended that solar modules assembled in Mexico from Taiwanese cells should not be treated as Taiwanese imports and sought a separate negligibility analysis. The court denied Kyocera's motion for judgment on the agency record, affirming the Commission's decision. The court reasoned that the Department of Commerce had defined the scope of the investigation to include such modules as subject merchandise from Taiwan, binding the Commission to evaluate imports accordingly, and found that import volumes exceeded statutory negligibility thresholds.
The case concerned an importer's challenge to U.S. Customs and Border Protection's denial of a protest regarding duty calculations on two entries of pencils at the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach. After two initial protests were denied, the importer filed a third protest on the same entries, which Customs rejected first as untimely and later as non-protestable. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a), reasoning that the third protest was invalid under the one-entry-one-protest rule of 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1) because only the first timely protest on an entry may be treated as valid, and subsequent protests contesting prior denials are not permitted.
The case involved the United States seeking civil penalties against Jeanette Pacheco for fraudulently undervaluing imported dried peppers from Mexico under section 592 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Pacheco had allowed a customs broker to use her name for entries declaring a low value, failed to provide supporting documentation when requested by Customs and Border Protection, and did not redeliver the goods after they were refused entry by the FDA due to adulteration. After Pacheco defaulted by not responding to the complaint, the Court of International Trade granted the government's motion for default judgment, awarding $2,651,312.18 in penalties based on the domestic value of the merchandise due to aggravating factors like providing misleading information and failing to comply with record demands, with no mitigating factors present.
The case concerned the proper tariff classification of imported wooden door stiles and rails consisting of a pine cap laminated to thin poplar layers. Plaintiff Composite Technology International challenged U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s denial of its protest, arguing the goods qualified for duty-free entry under HTSUS heading 4412 as plywood, veneered panels, or similar laminated wood. Customs had classified the merchandise under heading 4421 as other articles of wood subject to a 3.3% duty. The Court of International Trade reviewed the matter de novo on cross-motions for summary judgment and held that the products did not meet the structural requirements of heading 4412 because their thin layers and lack of a block, lath, or batten core disqualified them as similar laminated wood or veneered panels. The court therefore granted summary judgment to the government, confirming classification under the residual provision 4421.90.97.
This case involves a challenge by Appvion, Inc. to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in the fourth administrative review of an antidumping duty order on lightweight thermal paper from Germany. Appvion disputed Commerce's findings that certain sales by the German producer Koehler were within the ordinary course of trade and that adverse facts available were not warranted, citing Koehler's prior fraudulent transshipment scheme from the previous review. The court denied Appvion's motion for judgment on the agency record and affirmed Commerce's determinations. The reasoning was that Koehler fully disclosed the transshipment information in this review period, Commerce verified the data, and there was no basis to apply adverse facts available as in the prior review or other cases.