This case concerns the tariff classification of eight models of electrical cables imported by Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. in 2019. Customs and Border Protection had classified the goods under HTSUS subheading 8544.42.20 (duty-free) plus Section 301 duties under subheading 9903.88.03 at 10% or 25%. The importer protested the Section 301 duties, while the government sought to reclassify the cables under 8544.42.90 (2.6% duty) to recover additional duties. The court held that the cables are properly classified under 8544.42.90 and remain subject to the Section 301 duties, but that CBP lacks authority to reliquidate the entries and collect any additional duties because liquidation had become final.
This case concerns the tariff classification of eight models of electrical cables imported by Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. in 2019. Customs and Border Protection had classified the goods under HTSUS subheading 8544.42.20 (duty-free) plus Section 301 duties under subheading 9903.88.03 at 10% or 25%. The importer protested the Section 301 duties, while the government sought to reclassify the cables under 8544.42.90 (2.6% duty) to recover additional duties. The court held that the cables are properly classified under 8544.42.90 and remain subject to the Section 301 duties, but that CBP lacks authority to reliquidate the entries and collect any additional duties because liquidation had become final.
This case involves a challenge by Chinese solar cell manufacturers to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in the 2019-20 administrative review of an antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. The court reviewed Commerce's redetermination on remand, which addressed issues including the selection of surrogate values for inputs and the application of facts available with an adverse inference to calculate dumping margins for mandatory respondents. The court sustained Commerce's methodology for applying adverse facts available to calculate Risen Energy's rate, finding it supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law. However, it remanded for reconsideration Commerce's use of Romanian data to value solar glass as a surrogate input and the resulting separate rates assigned to JA Solar and BYD, as those rates depend on the primary margins. The court ordered Commerce to file a new redetermination within 90 days.
The case was a penalty action brought by the United States against Lexjet, LLC and related companies under 19 U.S.C. § 1592, alleging that the defendants misclassified and failed to declare 167 entries of Chinese artist canvases subject to a 2006 antidumping order, thereby avoiding duties and exposing them to over $11 million in penalties. In their answer, the defendants asserted four counterclaims challenging the antidumping order as void for vagueness, claiming Commerce unlawfully expanded its scope, alleging Customs misapplied physical characteristics of the goods, and seeking equitable recoupment of alleged overpayments. The court held that the purported counterclaims did not state independent causes of action but instead amounted to arguments negating liability in the government's enforcement action, and therefore redesignated all of them as defenses under USCIT Rule 8(d)(2), which made the plaintiff's motion to dismiss them moot.
This case concerns challenges by Chinese solar cell manufacturers to the U.S. Department of Commerce's antidumping duty calculations in the 2017-2018 administrative review of an order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. On second remand, Commerce used financial statements from Hanwha to derive a surrogate overhead ratio by inferring that inventory costs include energy expenses and that the gap between cost of sales and inventories reflects manufacturing overhead. The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's methodology as reasonable and supported by record evidence, finding that the agency adequately addressed opposing arguments and that no basis existed to alter the separate rate calculations for non-mandatory respondents. The court therefore upheld the remand results in full.
The case concerned the interpretation of antidumping and countervailing duty orders issued by the Department of Commerce covering certain chassis and subassemblies from China. Plaintiff Pitts Enterprises challenged Commerce's determination that Chinese components incorporated into chassis were subject to the orders, arguing instead that components are excluded unless imported with a Chinese chassis. The court held that the plain meaning of the orders does not support Commerce's broad interpretation, particularly regarding the term "entered," and remanded the matter for further explanation or reconsideration consistent with the plain meaning of the scope language.
