Dominick L. DiCarlo

This case involved a challenge by Indian steel companies to the U.S. Department of Commerce's calculation of countervailing duty subsidy rates under the International Price Reimbursement Scheme for the 1988 administrative review period. Following a remand order tied to the related Creswell Trading case, Commerce recalculated the company-specific rates but found no changes, resulting in rates of 10.03% for Uma Iron & Steel Co., 14.08% for Govind Steel, and 4.10% for all others. The Court of International Trade reviewed the redetermination results, noted that all parties had stipulated to and accepted the rates, and determined that Commerce had complied with the remand instructions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the results and dismissed the action.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by Carnation Enterprises and other Indian companies to subsidy rates determined by the U.S. Department of Commerce in a 1989 administrative review of imports subject to countervailing duties. Following a remand from a related case, Commerce recalculated the rates under India's International Price Reimbursement Scheme, resulting in new company-specific rates ranging from 16.10% to 20.36% and an all-others rate of 2.50%. The court affirmed these recalculated rates after the parties stipulated to and accepted them. The decision was based on Commerce's compliance with the remand order and the parties' agreement, leading to the dismissal of the action.

business & regulatory

This case concerns a remand from the Federal Circuit to the Court of International Trade regarding prior decisions on countervailing duties in Aimcor v. United States. The order directs the Department of Commerce to reconsider whether the Venezuelan government's purchase of Class E shares in CVG-Venezolana de Ferrosilicio was consistent with commercial considerations, specifically evaluating evidence on dividend and liquidation rights, sales price restrictions, and potential capital appreciation. If a subsidy is found to exist, Commerce must then calculate the appropriate countervailing duty using a suitable method. The remand results are due within thirty days, with opportunities for parties to comment.

business & regulatory

This case involves consolidated challenges by U.S. steel producers (Bethlehem Steel et al.) and a Dutch steel exporter (Hoogovens) to the Department of Commerce's final results in the second administrative review of an antidumping duty order on cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands. The parties disputed Commerce's findings on whether Hoogovens was reimbursing its U.S. importer for antidumping duties, entitlement to a constructed export price offset for level-of-trade differences, retroactive application of a currency conversion methodology, deduction of antidumping duties from U.S. price, and Commerce's post-summons correction of ministerial errors in amended results. The court sustained Commerce's determinations in full, holding that they were supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law, including permissible statutory interpretations under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677a and 1677b, the lack of evidence for claimed adjustments, and no need for remand on undisputed corrections. The court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) and applied the standard of review from 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B).

business & regulatory

This case involved importers challenging the Department of Commerce's subsidy rate calculations for Indian castings manufacturers during the 1985 administrative review period. Following a prior remand, Commerce recalculated the company-specific and country-wide countervailing duty rates to incorporate ocean shipping costs, producing new rates ranging from 7.96% to 51.39%. The court reviewed the results, noted that Commerce had complied with the remand and that no party had filed comments, and therefore affirmed the redetermination. With all issues resolved, the action was dismissed.

business & regulatory

The case involved a challenge by Outokumpu Copper Strip, B.V. to the United States Department of Commerce's calculation of an antidumping duty margin on certain copper products. Following a prior remand order, Commerce corrected two ministerial errors in its calculations, resulting in a revised dumping margin of 2.03 percent for the period from August 1, 1990, to July 31, 1991. The court reviewed the redetermination results, found that Commerce had complied with the remand, noted the absence of any party comments, and therefore affirmed the results while dismissing the action as all issues had been resolved.

business & regulatory

The case concerns a challenge to countervailing duty determinations by the Department of Commerce on certain cast iron articles imported from India. The Court of International Trade had earlier held that oceanic shipping costs did not qualify as countervailable subsidies, but the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part that ruling. In response to the appellate mandate, the court vacated the portion of its prior opinion regarding shipping costs and directed Commerce to recalculate the subsidy amounts and issue revised final results within thirty days. Parties may then comment on the remand results, with Commerce permitted a reply period.

business & regulatory

The case arose from the third administrative review of an antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from the Netherlands covering August 1990 to July 1991. After the court allowed Commerce to correct ministerial errors in the final results, the agency issued amended results that also excluded certain U.S. sales transactions from the database used to calculate the dumping margin, raising the margin from 2.03% to 5.85%. The plaintiff challenged these additional changes as unauthorized. The court found the exclusions were inadvertent and not requested or permitted, and therefore remanded the matter to Commerce with instructions to reinstate the omitted transactions, recalculate the margins, and issue new amended final results.

business & regulatory

The case involved a surety that paid additional customs duties demanded by the government on behalf of an insolvent importer after the statute of limitations had expired, doing so under threat of sanctions; Customs later refunded the principal following a related appellate decision but denied any obligation to pay interest. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, holding it entitled to interest on the refunded amount under 28 U.S.C. § 2644. The core reasoning was that the post-limitations demand was a wrongful exaction protestable under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(3), so the action qualified as one under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) for which the statute expressly awards interest from the date of filing to the date of refund, without any need for an admission of liability.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved challenges by Dutch steel exporter Hoogovens and domestic steel producers (AK Steel et al.) to the Department of Commerce's final results in the first administrative review of an antidumping duty order on cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands. Hoogovens contested the validity and application of Commerce's reimbursement regulation, which deducts from U.S. price any antidumping duties reimbursed by the exporter to the importer, while AK Steel argued that antidumping duties should be deducted as import duties or costs in the margin calculation. The court reviewed the determination under the substantial evidence and accordance with law standards. It remanded for Commerce to reconsider, with record citations, whether reimbursement had occurred during the review period, but sustained the agency's conclusion that it had statutory authority to issue the regulation, that the regulation applies to related parties, and that antidumping duties are not to be treated as import duties or costs under the statute.

business & regulatory

This case concerns Timex V.I., Inc.'s challenge to the denial of a 1996 production incentive certificate (PIC) under the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States, which provides duty refunds on certain watch imports based on wages paid by producers in U.S. insular possessions. The Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior upheld the denial because Timex had closed its Virgin Islands watch assembly operations by the end of 1995 and thus would not be a producer in 1996. Timex argued that the statute required the Secretaries to verify 1995 wages and issue the certificate without additional conditions, but the court applied Chevron deference and found the agency's interpretation—that a recipient must be a current producer intending to continue operations—reasonable in light of the statutory language referring to 'each producer' and the legislative history aimed at encouraging ongoing insular production. The court therefore sustained the administrative decision denying the PIC.

business & regulatory

This case involved the 1991 administrative review of a countervailing duty order on iron metal castings from India, focusing on whether Commerce properly calculated subsidies under programs including the Cash Compensatory Scheme (CCS) rebates and the § 80HHC tax deduction. The court had previously remanded the matter for Commerce to address potential double-counting of benefits from tax exemptions on countervailed rebates and to recalculate the § 80HHC benefit after adjusting for International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS) payments on nonsubject merchandise. On remand, Commerce determined that a grant such as a CCS or IPRS payment and a tax exemption on that grant constitute two separate countervailable benefits. The court sustained this approach, finding no double-counting, and also sustained Commerce's original calculation of the § 80HHC subsidy, vacating the prior order requiring recalculation. As a result, Commerce's Final Determination was upheld in full.

business & regulatorytaxes

The case concerned whether the U.S. Department of Commerce properly calculated countervailable subsidies under India's IPRS program, which reimbursed Indian exporters for using higher-priced domestic pig iron instead of cheaper world-market pig iron. On remand from a prior decision, Commerce determined that the Indian government's benchmark price required no adjustment for inland freight because it delivered pig iron to a comparable transport point as a commercial FOB world price, and it removed an earlier ocean freight adjustment while correcting a wastage calculation. The court sustained Commerce's Third Remand Determination as supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law, dismissed the action, and declined to order recalculation of rates for other administrative review periods.

business & regulatory

The case concerned countervailing duties on ferrosilicon imports from Venezuela, focusing on whether a 1991 government equity infusion via purchase of restricted Class E shares in FESILVEN and preferential electricity rates constituted subsidies. The court had earlier ruled that the share purchase was not on commercial terms because the company's articles precluded Class E shareholders from dividends or liquidation proceeds, making the grant methodology applicable despite the firm's equityworthiness. Commerce was directed to recalculate using that methodology and produced a 21.02 percent ad valorem rate for the equity infusion. Adding the previously sustained 22.08 percent rate for electricity benefits yielded an overall 43.10 percent countervailable subsidy rate, which the court sustained.

business & regulatoryfederal power

Haggar Apparel Company challenged the U.S. Customs Service's denial of a duty allowance for fabric components manufactured in the United States and assembled into men's pants in Mexico, where the pants underwent a post-assembly curing process involving resin treatment and baking to achieve performance characteristics like crease retention. The imported merchandise qualified under item 807.00 of the TSUS and subheading 9802.00.80 of the HTSUS for a partial duty allowance on U.S.-origin components exported for assembly abroad, provided they were not advanced in value or improved in condition except by assembly or operations incidental to it. Applying the Mast factors, the court determined that the curing operation was a minor process incidental to assembly rather than a separate fabrication step. The court therefore held that the components were entitled to the duty allowance and ordered Customs to grant it.

business & regulatory

The case concerned the tariff classification of imported shower curtain sets consisting of an outer textile curtain, an inner plastic liner, and plastic hooks. Customs classified the sets under the textile curtain provision at a 12.8% duty rate, while the importer argued for classification under the plastic liner provision at 3.36%. The court applied the General Rules of Interpretation, specifically GRI 3(b)'s essential character test after finding GRI 3(a) inapplicable, and determined that the plastic liner imparted the essential character because of its functional role in retaining water, providing privacy, and protecting against mildew. It therefore held that the sets should be classified under the plastic subheading and ordered reliquidation at the lower rate, limiting the holding to low-end market sets.

business & regulatory

This case involves Usinor Sacilor's challenge to the Department of Commerce's remand determination in an antidumping investigation concerning certain carbon steel flat products from France. The court had previously remanded issues including Commerce's application of best information available (BIA) for unmatched downstream sales from related steel centers where Usinor held a minority interest, as well as product concordance and coding errors. On remand, Commerce found no operational control by Usinor over those centers and applied a weighted average calculated margin as neutral BIA, but the court rejected this as non-neutral because it incorporated adverse elements like highest non-aberrant margins without record support for neutrality. The court also held that Usinor's challenges to BIA for unreported U.S. sales and other miscoded sales were barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Ultimately, the court sustained Commerce's determination in part and remanded in part with instructions to reapply the weighted average calculated margin properly for the affected downstream sales.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a challenge by domestic brass producers and unions to the Department of Commerce's redetermination of antidumping duties on brass sheet and strip from Germany following an earlier court remand. The court reviewed whether Commerce properly matched U.S. sales with home-market sales by physical similarity for calculating dumping margins under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673 and 1677b. Commerce had used the smallest difference in production costs (focused on copper content) to select comparable products and had mismatched specific alloys and time periods. The court held that the statute requires first identifying the most similar merchandise based on physical characteristics before applying any cost adjustments, and remanded with instructions for Commerce to correct the matching methodology, obtain additional data if needed, and ensure contemporaneous same-alloy comparisons, while declining to impose adverse best-information-available sanctions at this stage.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by Spanish steel producer ENSIDESA to the Department of Commerce's final antidumping determination on cut-to-length carbon steel plate imports from Spain. Commerce had denied the company's requests for additional time to submit cost-of-production and constructed-value data, labeled it an uncooperative respondent after it missed the deadline, and applied the preliminary margin of 105.61 percent as best information available. The court upheld the agency's actions, finding that Commerce acted within its discretion in managing deadlines and selecting BIA to promote compliance, that the company's partial responses did not warrant a lower rate, and that the determination was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Florsheim Shoe Company challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's denial of entry for elk skin shoes imported from Taiwan, which were seized under a presidential embargo imposed pursuant to the Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman's Protective Act. The embargo was triggered by Taiwan's certification for diminishing the effectiveness of international conservation measures through trade in rhinoceros and tiger parts. The court granted summary judgment to the United States, holding that the embargo properly covered the shoes as products of Taiwan containing wildlife parts, even though the elk originated elsewhere. The core reasoning was that the proclamation's language, context, and purpose, supported by legislative history and public notices, demonstrated an intent to restrict all wildlife products from Taiwan regardless of the wildlife's origin.

environmentbusiness & regulatory