Timothy M Reif

This case involves a challenge by domestic steel producers and a German exporter to the U.S. Department of Commerce's antidumping determination and remand redeterminations concerning forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany. The court addressed whether Commerce could apply particular market situation adjustments to the exporter's costs under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(1)(A) in the sales-below-cost test, as well as the evidentiary support for findings on subsidized electricity rates and imported ferrochrome inputs. The court held that the statute does not authorize such PMS adjustments under that provision because it would render other statutory subsections superfluous. It sustained Commerce's statutory interpretation but remanded for further explanation on the particularity of electricity market distortions, the role of foreign suppliers in price distortions, and the impact of parallel countervailing duties. The court ordered Commerce to file a new remand redetermination within 90 days.

business & regulatory

This case concerns a challenge by U.S. steel companies to the Department of Commerce's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review of forged steel fluid end blocks from Italy for the 2020-2021 period. The plaintiffs contested Commerce's selection of surrogate data for calculating constructed value selling, general, and administrative expenses and profit, as well as its valuation and adjustment of a major input purchased from an affiliated supplier. The Court of International Trade sustained portions of Commerce's determinations but remanded the matter in part, directing Commerce to explain or reconsider its acceptance of certain submissions and its application of market price adjustments for inputs. The court reasoned that the record lacked sufficient explanation for Commerce's choices regarding surrogate sources and logistical adjustments, drawing on precedents allowing use of facts available to fill gaps but requiring adequate justification.

business & regulatory

This case from the U.S. Court of International Trade concerns discovery disputes in an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) challenging Customs' denial of protests regarding steel product classifications tied to Section 232 exclusion requests. Plaintiff G&H Diversified Manufacturing LP moved for a ruling permitting Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices directed at the Bureau of Industry and Security and Customs and Border Protection, while the United States sought a protective order limiting or blocking those notices and related topics. The court granted the plaintiff's motion, allowing depositions naming the specific agencies, and granted in part the defendant's protective order by narrowing several deposition topics to those relevant and proportional to the claims, such as interagency coordination on exclusion requests and Customs' role, while rejecting broader requests on internal BIS guidance or unrelated processes under USCIT Rule 26(b)(1) standards for relevance and burden.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involves Veregy Central, LLC challenging the assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Commerce on solar modules imported from Thailand and Vietnam in 2022, which the company argued should have been exempt under a presidential proclamation and Commerce's Duty Suspension Rule implementing it. The plaintiff alleged that its entries were not subject to duties due to the rule and sought relief on multiple counts related to liquidation and corrective actions. Defendants moved to stay the proceedings pending the Federal Circuit's resolution of a related appeal in Auxin Solar, which addresses the validity of the Duty Suspension Rule. The court granted the stay, reasoning that the outcome in Auxin Solar would likely determine or moot the core issues here, including whether the entries qualified for duty suspension, to promote judicial efficiency and avoid inconsistent results.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a challenge by two Chinese magnesium producers to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final results in an antidumping duty administrative review covering pure magnesium from China for the period May 2022 through April 2023. The plaintiffs contested Commerce’s selection of Türkiye as the primary surrogate country instead of Bulgaria and raised concerns about the reliability of certain surrogate values, including for electricity. The court sustained Commerce’s selection of Türkiye, finding it met statutory criteria and was supported by substantial evidence, including the agency’s consideration of economic comparability and data quality. However, the court remanded the matter for further explanation or reconsideration of the specific surrogate value chosen for electricity.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L. to a finding by U.S. Customs and Border Protection that the company's aluminum extrusions were produced using forced labor in violation of section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930, making them subject to import restrictions. The court had previously ruled the finding arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and vacated it, remanding to the agency. Defendants moved for reconsideration, arguing that vacatur was not required, but the court denied the motion. The core reasoning was that defendants had not raised any argument against vacatur in their initial briefing despite the plaintiff's request for that remedy, effectively acquiescing to the default APA remedy of remand with vacatur, and new arguments on reconsideration are waived.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved the United States seeking to recover unpaid federal excise taxes from E-Dong, U.S.A., Inc., a California corporation that imported Korean distilled soju between 2017 and 2020. E-Dong had misclassified the merchandise under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as rice wine (subject to a lower excise tax) rather than distilled spirits, resulting in underpayment; after crediting a surety payment and accounting for the statute of limitations, the government claimed $234,748.30 owed under 19 U.S.C. § 1592(d) based on violations of § 1592(a)(1)(A)(i). E-Dong failed to answer the complaint or respond to the motion for default judgment, leading the court to enter default under USCIT Rule 55(a). The court granted the government's motion for default judgment, awarding the full amount plus pre-judgment interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6621 and post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, finding the well-pleaded facts established liability as a matter of law and that Customs' determination was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. Jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C. § 1582(1) and (3).

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. challenging a U.S. Customs and Border Protection determination that it had evaded antidumping duties on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand by importing dual-stenciled pipe without proper classification or cash deposits. The Court of International Trade denied the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the agency record. The court sustained Customs' evasion finding, which was based on a Commerce Department scope ruling that the merchandise fell within the antidumping order and on the absence of any statutory requirement for prior notice to importers under the Enforce and Protect Act.

business & regulatory

The case involves Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L., a Dominican Republic manufacturer of aluminum extrusions, challenging a finding by U.S. Customs and Border Protection that its products were produced using forced labor, making them subject to import restrictions under section 307 of the Tariff Act. Customs had conducted an on-site verification and investigation, then issued a formal Finding prohibiting imports based on alleged forced labor practices. The U.S. Court of International Trade reviewed the agency's decision under the arbitrary and capricious standard and determined that Customs failed to adequately explain the connection between the evidence gathered and its conclusion of forced labor use, including in its public administrative record memoranda. As a result, the court vacated the Finding and remanded the matter to Customs for further explanation or reconsideration.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

This case concerned a challenge by Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. to the U.S. Department of Commerce's remand results in a countervailing duty investigation of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Vietnam. Commerce had determined that Vietnam's currency undervaluation program provided countervailable subsidies to producers, including by finding the program de facto specific to the traded goods sector under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5A)(D) and supporting regulations. The plaintiff contested aspects of the specificity finding and the evidence regarding the government's foreign exchange purchases. The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's remand results in full, holding that they were supported by substantial evidence on the record and otherwise in accordance with law.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved J.D. Irving, a Canadian producer and importer of softwood lumber, challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's cash deposit instructions to Customs following the final results of the 2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada. The United States and Commerce moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). The court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that J.D. Irving was a party to the administrative proceeding and that jurisdiction could have been available under § 1581(c) but for the binational panel review initiated by other interested parties. The court reasoned that allowing the challenge to the cash deposit instructions would improperly circumvent the exclusive jurisdiction of the binational panel system.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, King Maker Marketing Inc. sued the United States after U.S. Customs and Border Protection denied its substitution unused merchandise drawback claims under 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(2) as untimely, contesting the deemed denial of its administrative protest. The plaintiff had imported cigarettes into a foreign-trade zone between 2012 and 2014, later withdrew them for consumption and paid duties, exported similar merchandise, and filed drawback claims between 2018 and 2019, which Customs rejected because they were not submitted within five years of the original importation date. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding that the statutory five-year filing period begins on the date of importation into the FTZ rather than the later date of withdrawal and entry for consumption, and that there was no conflict with foreign-trade zone laws that would support a different interpretation. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the undisputed facts.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned Pay Less Here, LLC's challenge to the U.S. International Trade Commission's final affirmative determination of critical circumstances in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations involving mattresses imported from Burma and other countries. The Commission had found that massive imports were likely to undermine the remedial effect of an antidumping duty order, resulting in earlier retroactive application of duties. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that plaintiff lacked statutory standing under 28 U.S.C. § 2631(c) because it had not filed an entry of appearance in the underlying administrative proceeding. The court granted the motion, concluding that plaintiff's submission of a single mandatory questionnaire response did not constitute meaningful participation sufficient to notify the Commission of its concerns and thereby qualify it as a party to the proceeding.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns an importer of pop-up tents challenging a U.S. Customs and Border Protection classification ruling that placed its merchandise under a higher-tariff subheading than the importer desired. The plaintiff moved to amend its complaint to add a claim that the ruling modified a prior treatment of substantially identical entries without the notice-and-comment process required by 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c)(2). The Court of International Trade denied leave to amend, concluding that the proposed claim would be futile because the complaint did not plausibly allege the existence of an “actual determination” by Customs constituting a qualifying treatment under the statute and regulations. The court relied on Federal Circuit precedent requiring consistent Customs decisions on substantially identical merchandise rather than mere liquidations or protest approvals.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case from the U.S. Court of International Trade concerns challenges to the Department of Commerce's final results in the 2021-2022 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from China. Plaintiffs Bio-Lab, Innovative Water Care, and Occidental Chemical contested Commerce's rejection of Mexico as the primary surrogate country for calculating normal value, including its handling of economic comparability thresholds and determinations that calcium hypochlorite and sodium hypochlorite qualify as comparable merchandise. Consolidated plaintiffs Juancheng Kangtai and Heze Huayi challenged Commerce's selection of Romania over Malaysia as the surrogate country and its use of Romanian surrogate value data for labor and financial ratios. The court sustained Commerce's results in part but remanded in part, ordering Commerce to provide further explanations or reconsiderations regarding cyanuric acid as a major input, the physical characteristics and production processes of the comparable merchandise, and the reliability of the Romanian labor data.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by Baroque Timber and related parties to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final results in the ninth administrative review of a countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. The plaintiffs contested Commerce’s calculations of benchmark prices for plywood, veneer, and inland freight, as well as its application of adverse facts available to determine that certain input suppliers were government authorities and that the company used the Export Buyer’s Credit Program. The court sustained Commerce’s inland freight benchmark calculation and its use of adverse facts available regarding the Export Buyer’s Credit Program, finding both supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law. It remanded the plywood and veneer benchmark calculations for further explanation and the adverse facts available determination on input suppliers for compliance with statutory notice requirements under 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d).

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by Chinese producers Baroque Timber Industries and Riverside Plywood to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in the tenth administrative review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. The plaintiffs contested Commerce's calculation of a benchmark price for plywood using averaged data from ITTO and UN Comtrade sources, as well as its application of adverse facts available to treat certain input suppliers as government authorities based on incomplete responses from the Chinese government. The U.S. Court of International Trade remanded the final results to Commerce, directing further explanation of the plywood benchmark methodology and compliance with statutory notice requirements under 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d) before applying adverse facts available. The court reasoned that Commerce had not adequately identified specific deficiencies in the government responses or requested the missing information with sufficient particularity to allow correction. The remand requires Commerce to specify deficiencies, request necessary data, and provide an opportunity to remedy issues within 90 days.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by Evolutions Flooring, Inc. and other plaintiffs to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final results in the eighth administrative review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. Plaintiffs contested Commerce’s calculations and findings on issues including the plywood benchmark price, inclusion of backboard purchases in the veneers for less than adequate remuneration program, VAT rates, and application of adverse facts available regarding the Export Buyers Credit Program. The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s determinations on the plywood benchmark, backboard inclusion, VAT application, and one adverse facts available finding as supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. The court granted the government’s requests for voluntary remand to correct a calculation error on backboard veneers and to further evaluate adverse facts available on another respondent’s program use. The decision was based on the standard of review for agency actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c).

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final determinations finding circumvention of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Korea, Taiwan, and China. Commerce had rejected the company's questionnaire responses as untimely and applied adverse facts available to conclude that the company was involved in circumvention and ineligible for certification regarding non-use of certain steel. The United States Court of International Trade granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the agency record, ordering Commerce to accept the responses into the record and reconsider the certification eligibility. The court reasoned that Commerce abused its discretion by denying extension requests and rejecting the submissions under the specific circumstances of these inquiries.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by Wheatland Tube to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in a 2019-2020 antidumping duty administrative review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Korea, specifically Commerce's initial decision to grant constructed export price (CEP) offsets to mandatory respondents Hyundai Steel and Husteel. In an earlier ruling, the court remanded the matter for Commerce to comply with statutory notice and opportunity-to-remedy requirements under 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d) regarding deficiencies in the respondents' level-of-trade submissions. On remand, Commerce issued supplemental questionnaires, determined that the respondents had not adequately demonstrated a more advanced home-market level of trade, and recalculated the dumping margins without the CEP offset. The court sustained Commerce's remand redetermination, finding it supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law, including Commerce's reasonable choice of per-unit methodology for analyzing selling activities.

business & regulatory