Leo Maury Gordon

The case involved a challenge by U.S. importers and manufacturers of wooden cabinets to the Department of Commerce’s final scope determination under antidumping and countervailing duty orders covering wooden cabinets and vanities from China, specifically addressing whether further processing in Vietnam removed certain products from the orders’ coverage. The Court of International Trade denied the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the agency record and sustained Commerce’s determination in full. The court held that Commerce lawfully initiated the scope inquiry and that its conclusions were supported by substantial evidence, including its selection of surrogate-value data as the best available information; the court emphasized Commerce’s broad discretion in data selection and the interested parties’ burden to develop an adequate administrative record.

business & regulatory

The case concerned a challenge by U.S. importers and manufacturers of wooden cabinets to the Department of Commerce's final scope determination under antidumping and countervailing duty orders covering wooden cabinets and vanities from China, specifically addressing whether further processing in Malaysia placed the products outside the orders' scope. Plaintiffs argued that Commerce lacked authority to initiate the scope inquiry and that its findings lacked substantial evidentiary support. The U.S. Court of International Trade denied the motion for judgment on the agency record and sustained the determination. The court held that Commerce's initiation was lawful, its selection of surrogate value data constituted the best available information on the record, and its overall conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.

business & regulatory

The case involved Amoena USA Corp. challenging the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's classification of imported mastectomy brassieres under HTSUS subheading 6212.10.90 as brassieres subject to a 16.9% duty, instead arguing for classification under subheading 9021.39.00 as accessories to artificial breast forms, which would be duty-free. The United States Court of International Trade denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion. The court reasoned that the mastectomy bras are specialized brassieres that function as clothing and are not accessories to artificial breast forms under the tariff schedule, applying General Rule of Interpretation 1 and precedent from Riddell, Inc. v. United States.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case from the U.S. Court of International Trade concerns a challenge by Tau-Ken Temir LLP, JSC NMC Tau-Ken Samruk, and the Ministry of Trade and Integration of Kazakhstan to a determination by the U.S. Department of Commerce in an international trade proceeding. After an initial remand, Commerce submitted its Final Results of Redetermination, and the court set a schedule for parties to file comments. No comments opposing the results were filed by the plaintiffs or plaintiff-intervenor, though the defendant requested affirmance. The court therefore sustained the Remand Results as unchallenged.

business & regulatory

Houston Shutters LLC challenged the U.S. Department of Commerce’s decision not to initiate a changed circumstances review to determine whether wood shutter components fell within the scope of an antidumping duty order on millwork products from China. The company filed two separate actions seeking the same relief, one under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) and one under § 1581(i). The government moved to dismiss the § 1581(c) action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion after the plaintiff acknowledged that jurisdiction properly lies under § 1581(i) rather than § 1581(c).

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns Houston Shutters LLC's challenge to the U.S. Department of Commerce's refusal to initiate a changed circumstances review regarding the scope of an antidumping duty order on millwork products from China, specifically whether wood shutter components were covered. The plaintiff filed two parallel actions seeking the same relief under different jurisdictional statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1581(i) and 1581(c). The government moved to dismiss the § 1581(i) action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the true nature of the claim was a challenge to the original scope determination that could have been pursued under § 1581(c). The court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged new information unavailable during the original investigations and that the government had not identified a workable standard to recharacterize the claim as outside § 1581(i) jurisdiction.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a challenge by Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final affirmative countervailing duty determination on frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam, specifically Commerce's selection of land rental benchmark data from a Thailand Board of Investment report to value benefits under Vietnam's rent exemption program for encouraged industries. The plaintiff moved for judgment on the agency record under USCIT Rule 56.2, arguing that alternative Philippine data should have been used instead. The Court of International Trade denied the motion and sustained Commerce's determination. The court reasoned that Commerce's choice was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence because the Thai data did not require adjustments, unlike the alternative data, and the agency's selection among available options was not unreasonable under the substantial evidence standard of review.

business & regulatory

This case concerns the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review of utility scale wind towers from the Republic of Korea. The Wind Tower Trade Coalition challenged Commerce's methods for calculating adjustments for differences in merchandise and cost of production differences based on physical characteristics, particularly regarding conversion costs reported by Dongkuk S&C Co., Ltd. The court sustained Commerce's determinations in part but remanded the issue of conversion costs, finding that the agency's explanation in the Decision Memorandum was inadequate and did not address key physical characteristics or respond sufficiently to the plaintiff's analysis. The court applied the substantial evidence standard, noting that post hoc rationalizations by counsel could not substitute for the agency's own reasoning.

business & regulatory

This case involves challenges by AG der Dillinger Hüttenwerke and others to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final determination in an antidumping investigation concerning carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany. The court reviewed Commerce's Fourth Remand Results, which adjusted the model match methodology to include a separate quality code for sour transport plate but maintained the rejection of a proposed code for sour service pressure vessel plate. The court sustained these results, finding that Commerce's decisions were supported by substantial evidence on the record and in accordance with law, particularly by reasonably analogizing to prior cases like Bohler and explaining the adjustments based on commercially significant physical differences.

business & regulatory

This case concerns a challenge by U.S. honey importers and industry groups to the U.S. International Trade Commission's final affirmative critical circumstances determination in an antidumping investigation of raw honey from Vietnam. After finding material injury to the domestic industry, the Commission determined that a surge in subject imports was likely to seriously undermine the remedial effect of the antidumping orders issued by the Department of Commerce. Plaintiffs argued that the evidence did not support an affirmative critical circumstances finding and urged the court to adopt the dissenting commissioner's view. The court sustained the Commission's determination, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, including import volume, inventory, and pricing data, and that the substantial evidence standard does not permit reweighing the evidence or substituting a plausible alternative conclusion for the agency's reasonable one.

business & regulatory

This case involves challenges by German steel manufacturers, including Consolidated Plaintiffs known as Salzgitter, to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final antidumping determination on certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany. The court had previously upheld Commerce's decision to apply partial adverse facts available under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b) to Salzgitter's sales where the manufacturer could not be identified, resulting in a 22.90 percent weighted-average dumping margin. Salzgitter moved for partial final judgment under USCIT Rule 54(b) to conclude its portion of the litigation. The court granted the motion, determining that the remaining issues involved other parties and that there was no just reason for delay in entering judgment as to Salzgitter's claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves Target Corporation challenging the denial of its protest of U.S. Customs and Border Protection's reliquidation of 40 entries of imported metal-top iron tables at the 72.29% antidumping duty rate set in a prior court judgment, rather than the original 9.47% cash deposit rate. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under USCIT Rule 12(b)(6). The core reasoning was that the Court of International Trade possesses inherent authority as an Article III court, along with statutory powers under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1585 and 2643, to enforce its own judgments by ordering reliquidation when Customs had erroneously liquidated entries at the wrong rate, and that Target's challenge improperly sought to relitigate issues from the related prior action (Court No. 07-00123).

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Target Corporation's challenge to U.S. Customs and Border Protection's reliquidation of 40 entries of imported merchandise at a 72.29% antidumping duty rate, rather than the original 9.47% cash deposit rate, pursuant to a prior court judgment in a related action. Target protested the reliquidation and sued after Customs denied the protest, arguing that the court lacked authority to order the reliquidation outside statutory time limits under 19 U.S.C. § 1501. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss under USCIT Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The core reasoning was that the Court of International Trade possesses inherent authority as an Article III court, reinforced by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1585 and 2643, to enforce its own judgments by directing reliquidation when necessary, independent of Customs' voluntary procedures.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves challenges by German steel producers to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final determination in an antidumping investigation of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany. The court sustained Commerce's application of facts otherwise available regarding production costs for non-prime plate and partial adverse facts available for certain home market sales due to missing manufacturing information. The court remanded for further explanation Commerce's rejection of a proposed additional quality code in its model-match methodology for "sour transport plate," noting potential inconsistency with its approach in a similar prior case. The reasoning centered on statutory requirements for using available facts when data is missing and the need for consistent agency decision-making.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by importers Ikadan System USA, Inc. and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co., Ltd. to U.S. Customs and Border Protection's affirmative determination of evasion under the Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA), 19 U.S.C. § 1517, concerning entries of merchandise subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel products. After an initial determination, administrative review, and remand to incorporate a Commerce scope ruling, CBP concluded that the importers had evaded the orders by entering covered merchandise without paying required duties. Plaintiffs argued that CBP's interpretations of EAPA were unlawful and its factual findings unreasonable, and they sought review of actions like suspension of liquidation and cash deposit requirements. The court sustained CBP's Remand Results, holding that its evasion determination complied with the statute and that judicial review under EAPA § 1517(g) is limited to the determination itself and does not extend to certain enforcement actions under other subsections.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection's determination that certain uninterruptible power supplies and surge voltage protectors originated from China rather than being substantially transformed in the Philippines. After a trial, the court found that the plaintiff did not overcome the presumption of correctness attached to Customs' decision or prove the alternative country of origin by a preponderance of the evidence. In this motion, the plaintiff sought partial reconsideration or retrial under USCIT Rule 59, arguing errors in the original findings. The court denied the motion, holding that it did not identify any manifest error or fundamental flaw in the prior decision, particularly noting the plaintiff's incorrect assumption about overcoming the presumption for certain models.

business & regulatory

The case involved Greek pipe manufacturers challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review for large diameter welded pipe from Greece. The plaintiffs argued that Commerce improperly applied total adverse facts available due to alleged deficiencies in their cost data submissions and that the selected duty rate was not properly corroborated. The court sustained Commerce's determination, holding that the agency reasonably applied adverse facts available because the respondent failed to cooperate fully by providing verifiable cost information, and the chosen rate was supported by evidence from the original investigation.

business & regulatory

This case concerned the tariff classification by U.S. Customs and Border Protection of Kent International's WeeRide child safety seats for bicycles. Customs initially classified the seats under HTSUS heading 8714 at a 10% duty rate but later changed its position. The court held that Customs had established a consistent treatment of classifying the seats duty-free under heading 9401 by granting Kent's protests over a two-year period, and thus violated the statutory notice and comment requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c) by issuing a new ruling without following those procedures. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment to Kent for entries protested after November 2010, entitling them to duty-free treatment.

business & regulatorytaxes

The case concerned a challenge by JA Solar International Limited and JA Solar USA Inc. to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in the fifth administrative review of an antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwan. After a prior remand, Commerce issued redetermination results that were submitted to the court. The court sustained those remand results in full. It further directed that the enjoined subject entries be liquidated in accordance with the final court decision under the relevant tariff statute.

business & regulatory

In this case, Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. challenged a U.S. Customs and Border Protection decision that denied its protest over the country-of-origin marking for five models of uninterruptible power supplies and one model of surge voltage protectors imported from the Philippines. Customs had determined that the goods originated in China rather than the Philippines and required remarking under 19 U.S.C. § 1304(a). After a trial focused on whether operations in the Philippines effected a substantial transformation of Chinese components, the court entered judgment for the plaintiff as to one UPS model (CP600LCDa) and for the defendant as to the remaining five models. The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the assembly processes for five models resulted in products with a new name, character, and use, due to insufficient specific testimony and documentary evidence on the manufacturing steps.

business & regulatory