Richard K. Eaton

The case involved the United States suing importer Franco Tire Distribution, Inc. for a negligent violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1592 based on material omissions in entry paperwork that could have influenced the assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties on imported tires. The Court of International Trade granted the government's motion for default judgment after the defendant failed to appear or respond. The court reasoned that the default admitted the allegations of negligence, the defendant did not meet its burden to show reasonable care, and the requested penalty of $55,882.98 (twice the potential lost revenue) fell within the statutory cap and was supported by evidence.

business & regulatory

This case concerned a challenge by Chinese tire manufacturers Giti Tire Global Trading Pte. Ltd. and its affiliates to the Department of Commerce's amended final results in the seventh administrative review of an antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. The plaintiffs sought to remand Commerce's calculation of the surrogate value for ocean freight and to require Commerce to issue liquidation instructions that disregarded its 2011 Assessment Policy for unreported entries, instead using company-specific rates. The court denied the motion for judgment on the agency record and sustained the amended final results. It held that the surrogate value determination was supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law, and that the claim regarding liquidation instructions was premature because Commerce had not yet issued final instructions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case from the U.S. Court of International Trade involved plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors, Vietnamese honey producers, challenging the Department of Commerce's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review on raw honey imports. After the original plaintiffs' case was dismissed for failing to file a timely complaint, the intervenors sought to amend a statutory injunction against liquidation of their entries, requesting it be made effective retroactively as of the date they first moved for it. The court denied the motion to amend the injunction nunc pro tunc. The core reasoning was that no legal authority supports backdating a statutory injunction to cover entries liquidated before the order was entered, consistent with prior precedent requiring evidence of intent and adherence to procedural finality rules.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case from the U.S. Court of International Trade involved Vietnamese honey producers challenging the Department of Commerce's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review on raw honey imports. Plaintiffs timely filed a summons but missed the deadline to file their complaint due to counsel's mistaken belief that it had been submitted electronically, leading to dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court vacated the dismissal and granted leave to file the complaint out of time, applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) factors for excusable neglect. It reasoned that the brief delay caused no prejudice to the government, plaintiffs promptly sought relief and demonstrated good faith through related filings, and the overall circumstances warranted relief despite an unclear explanation for the initial filing error.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case from the U.S. Court of International Trade involved a challenge by Kingtom Aluminio S.r.L. and others to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results of its 2019 administrative review of an antidumping duty order on aluminum extrusions from China. Commerce had initially rejected Kingtom's claim of no shipments during the review period based on a U.S. Customs and Border Protection finding of evasion under the Enforce and Protect Act, which led to recategorizing entries as subject to the order. Following related litigation that altered the evasion determination, Commerce sought and received a remand, after which it concluded there were no reviewable entries and decided to rescind the review as to Kingtom. The court sustained the uncontested remand results, finding they complied with the remand order and were supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.

business & regulatory

The case involved a challenge by Kingtom Aluminio S.r.L. and other consolidated plaintiffs to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in the 2019 administrative review of a countervailing duty order on aluminum extrusions from China. Commerce initially determined that Kingtom had reviewable entries subject to the order based on a U.S. Customs and Border Protection finding of evasion through transshipment during an overlapping period, but following court decisions in related cases that reversed the evasion determination, Commerce on remand reconsidered the record, accepted Kingtom's no-shipment certification, and rescinded the review as to Kingtom. The court sustained the uncontested remand results, finding that Commerce had complied with the remand instructions and that its determination was supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law.

business & regulatory

This case concerns the U.S. Department of Commerce's countervailing duty investigation into wooden cabinets and vanities from China, specifically addressing subsidies under a particular program and the calculation of duty rates for exporters like Dalian Meisen and Ancientree Cabinet. After multiple remands, the court reviewed Commerce's third remand results, which recalculated rates by distinguishing verified non-use of the subsidy by U.S. customers and adjusting exporter and all-others rates accordingly. The court sustained those results, holding that Commerce complied with the prior remand order by using customer-specific rates for retroactive adjustments and that the determinations were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the countervailing duty statute. The opinion notes the absence of evidence of actual subsidy use and affirms the methodology for revising cash deposits on enjoined entries without setting prospective rates.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by PT. Asia Pacific Fibers Tbk, an Indonesian manufacturer, to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s antidumping duty determination on polyester textured yarn imported from Indonesia during the period October 2019 through September 2020. Commerce had initially applied adverse facts available in its final determination after a verification questionnaire, resulting in a higher duty rate, but following a court remand, Commerce reexamined the data, confirmed that Asia Pacific’s responses were adequate, and recalculated the weighted-average dumping margin at 9.20 percent without using adverse facts. The court sustained Commerce’s uncontested remand results, finding that they complied with the prior remand order, were supported by substantial evidence on the record, and were otherwise in accordance with law under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).

business & regulatory

This case from the U.S. Court of International Trade concerns the Department of Commerce's calculation of antidumping duty rates on imports of multilayered wood flooring from China, specifically the separate rate assigned to companies not individually examined. After the court remanded the matter, Commerce revised that rate downward from 42.57% to 31.63% using a new methodology. The revised results were uncontested by the parties, and the court sustained them as compliant with its prior instructions, supported by substantial evidence, and otherwise in accordance with law. Issues previously reserved for decision were rendered moot by the redetermination.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case concerned the U.S. Department of Commerce's determination in an antidumping investigation of biodiesel from Indonesia, specifically whether adjusting normal value by disregarding domestic crude palm oil prices due to a particular market situation from an export levy created a double remedy with a related countervailing duty case. On remand, Commerce explained that no double remedy occurred because the constructed normal value used unaffected world market prices and U.S. sales prices were based on NYMEX heating oil futures, also unaffected by the levy. The court sustained Commerce's remand results, finding they were supported by substantial evidence and complied with the prior order, with no objections from the parties.

business & regulatory

The case concerned the proper tariff classification under the HTSUS for thirty-three chrome-plated plastic automobile parts imported by Jing Mei Automotive from China. The plaintiff sought classification under chapter 87 (motor vehicle parts and accessories) at a 2.5% duty rate, while Customs classified most of the items under chapter 39 (plastics and articles thereof) with duties ranging from 2.5% to 6.5%. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion, holding that Customs' classifications were correct because the goods were more specifically described by provisions in chapter 39 or, for certain mirror scalps, under the more specific subheading 8708.29.50.60 within chapter 87.

business & regulatorytaxes

This case involves a challenge by PT. Asia Pacific Fibers Tbk, an Indonesian manufacturer, to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final antidumping duty determination on polyester textured yarn from Indonesia, which assigned the company a 26.07% rate based on total adverse facts available after issues arose during verification of its questionnaire responses. The plaintiff argued that Commerce's verification procedures were unreasonable, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and sought a remand for proper on-site or remote verification. The court remanded the matter to Commerce, ordering the agency to prepare a report detailing the methods, procedures, and results of verification, provide the plaintiff an opportunity to address any deficiencies on the record, allow parties to submit case briefs, and reconsider its final determination accordingly. The court's decision was based on Commerce's failure to comply with regulatory requirements under 19 C.F.R. § 351.307(c) and § 351.309(c)(2) regarding verification documentation and opportunities for comment.

business & regulatory

The case involved the proper tariff classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States for imported industrial size-reduction machines manufactured by Vecoplan, LLC, which process waste materials such as plastic, paper, and wood through crushing, grinding, and screening functions. Plaintiff Vecoplan challenged U.S. Customs and Border Protection's classification, moving for summary judgment, while the government cross-moved. The Court of International Trade granted the plaintiff's motion and denied the defendant's, concluding that the machines fall under HTSUS subheading 8479.82.00 because their primary operations match the listed functions of mixing, kneading, crushing, grinding, screening, sifting, homogenizing, emulsifying, or stirring machines, and a principal function analysis was unnecessary as all functions aligned with a single subheading. The court rejected the government's proposed basket provision classification, finding that the machines' design and operation did not require comparison across multiple headings.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring to the U.S. Department of Commerce's calculations in the seventh administrative review of an antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, specifically regarding surrogate values for glue, a manufacturing overhead financial ratio, and hourly labor rates. After an initial remand, Commerce revised its methods for the overhead ratio and labor value calculations using data from surrogate country Romania and the International Labor Organization. The court sustained Commerce's final remand results, finding them supported by substantial evidence and compliant with the prior order, as no parties contested the outcome. The decision rests on the standard of review under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i), confirming the agency's explanations and data usage were reasonable.

business & regulatory

In Fusong Jinlong Wooden Grp. Co. v. United States, the U.S. Court of International Trade considered a motion by the United States, on behalf of the Department of Commerce, seeking reconsideration of the court's prior decision in Fusong I. That earlier ruling had found Commerce's selection of Senmao's highest transaction-specific dumping margin as Sino-Maple's adverse facts available rate unauthorized under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(d) in the context of an antidumping proceeding involving multilayered wood flooring. On reconsideration, the court granted the motion and held that Commerce's method for selecting the adverse facts available rate was lawful. It therefore partially vacated Fusong I on that issue and relieved Commerce of any obligation to conduct a remand redetermination, while noting that remaining issues would be addressed in a subsequent opinion.

business & regulatory

In ME Global, Inc. v. United States, the U.S. Court of International Trade addressed the tariff classification of heat-treated forged steel rods imported from China, which are used in mining to crush ore. The importer entered the rods under HTSUS subheading 7228.30.80 as bars and rods not further worked than hot-rolled, but U.S. Customs and Border Protection classified them under subheading 7228.40.00 as other bars and rods not further worked than forged. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendant's, holding that the forging process after hot-rolling constituted "further working" under the tariff schedule's plain meaning and structure, so the rods fell under the forged subheading. The decision rested on the statutory text, definitions in the HTSUS notes, and the principle that interpretations must give effect to all terms without rendering any superfluous.

business & regulatory

This case concerns a challenge by Italian pasta producers La Molisana S.p.A. and Valdigrano di Flavio Pagani S.r.L. to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final results in the twenty-third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy. The plaintiffs sought to require Commerce to revise its model-match methodology for coding protein content, claiming the existing approach led to price comparisons between physically dissimilar products. The United States Court of International Trade denied the motion for judgment on the agency record and sustained the Final Results. The court held that the plaintiffs had not presented compelling evidence of changes in industry practice or commercially significant differences arising from Italian versus U.S. protein measurement standards that would require altering the long-standing method, and that substantial evidence supported Commerce’s conclusions.

business & regulatory

This case concerns the U.S. Department of Commerce's 2015-2016 antidumping duty administrative review of multilayered wood flooring from China. Commerce determined that mandatory respondent Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd. failed to rebut the presumption of state control and thus applied the China-wide entity rate under its nonmarket economy (NME) policy, without calculating a separate individual rate. After an earlier remand, Commerce again declined to justify the NME presumption or provide an individual margin. The court held that Commerce had not demonstrated its NME policy was in accordance with law and ordered a second remand requiring Commerce to calculate an individual weighted-average dumping margin for Jilin.

business & regulatory

This case involved U.S. domestic producers of chlorinated isocyanurates challenging the Department of Commerce's final results in an administrative review of a countervailing duty order on imports from China. The producers contested Commerce's findings that Chinese exporters received countervailable subsidies through the Export Buyer’s Credit Program, determined using adverse facts available due to China's non-cooperation, and the selection of a 0.87 percent subsidy rate. The court sustained Commerce's determinations, holding that the use of adverse facts available was warranted and that the rate, drawn from a similar program under Commerce's hierarchy, was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge to the U.S. Department of Commerce's determination of countervailable subsidies for Indonesian producers of biodiesel, specifically regarding the provision of crude palm oil for less than adequate remuneration. Following an earlier court order directing Commerce to recalculate its subsidy rate or exclude effects of the 1994 Export Tariff, Commerce on remand concluded that its ad valorem subsidy calculation was based solely on the 2015 export levy with no claimed effects from the 1994 tariff, so no adjustment was needed. The court sustained the remand results, finding that Commerce had complied with the prior instructions. No parties contested the outcome.

business & regulatory