Claire Rita Kelly

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.

business & regulatorytaxesfederal power

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.

business & regulatorytaxesfederal power

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.

business & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatory

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.

business & regulatory

This case from the U.S. Court of International Trade involves Chinese aluminum foil producers challenging the Department of Commerce's determinations in the fifth administrative review of an antidumping duty order covering the 2022-2023 period, including surrogate country selection, financial ratio calculations, separate rate eligibility, and liquidation instructions. The plaintiffs moved to stay the proceedings pending final resolution of a related challenge to the prior (fourth) review. The court denied the stay motion, reasoning that each administrative review involves distinct factual records, overlapping legal issues do not justify delay, and a stay would not promote efficiency or resolve all claims in the current case.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned the U.S. Department of Commerce's calculation of antidumping duties on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China for the 2021-2022 period, specifically adjustments to Trina Solar's sales prices to account for countervailing duties on export subsidies. After a prior remand from the court, Commerce revised Trina's cash deposit rate downward from 10.50% to 9.09% by adjusting for three specific programs found to be export-contingent based on prior determinations. The court sustained Commerce's remand redetermination, finding that it was supported by substantial evidence from the 2017 CVD review and complied with the remand order regarding which programs warranted price adjustments.

business & regulatory

The case involved Your Standing International, Inc. challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's selection of San Shing Fastech Corporation's financial statements to calculate constructed value profit and indirect selling expenses in an administrative review of antidumping duties on steel nails from Taiwan. The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's determination. The court found that Commerce's choice was supported by substantial evidence on the record, as San Shing's sales were not exclusively or predominantly to the U.S. market, and rejected certain arguments for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

business & regulatory

This case concerns a challenge by BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH to the U.S. Department of Commerce's countervailing duty determination on imports of forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany, focusing on whether certain German programs, including the KAV Program, provided countervailable subsidies. After multiple prior remands, Commerce issued a fourth remand redetermination concluding that record gaps regarding the KAV Program's de facto specificity did not warrant adverse inferences because the German government could not supply certain usage data due to trade secret laws and its lack of involvement in program administration. The court reviewed whether Commerce's latest findings were supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. The court sustained the redetermination, holding that Commerce reasonably declined to apply adverse facts available given the explanations for the missing information.

business & regulatory

In this case from the U.S. Court of International Trade, Trina Solar challenged the Department of Commerce's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review of crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China. Trina argued that Commerce should have increased its U.S. sales price to account for countervailing duties from eleven subsidy programs identified in a prior companion CVD review, rather than only five, under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1)(C). The court remanded the matter to Commerce for further explanation or consideration, finding that Commerce's determination did not adequately address information from the record of the earlier CVD proceeding or explain its refusal to apply the offset for the additional programs. The court directed Commerce to either point to relevant evidence or reopen the record as needed before applying the statutory adjustment if appropriate.

business & regulatory

The case involved International Rights Advocates suing the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection to compel an investigation and withhold release order barring cocoa imports from the Ivory Coast alleged to involve forced child labor, under 19 U.S.C. § 1307. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It held that the plaintiff, an advocacy organization, lacked Article III standing because its claimed expenses were routine operational costs not constituting an injury in fact, any injury was not fairly traceable to CBP's inaction, and a favorable ruling would not likely redress the harm since the agency might decline to act or the order might not end the underlying labor practices.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns the U.S. Department of Commerce's countervailing duty investigation into imports of forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany, specifically whether the Konzessionsabgabenverordung (KAV) Program constituted a countervailable subsidy. After multiple remands, the Court of International Trade reviewed Commerce's third remand determination that the program was not specific. The court held that Commerce's conclusion was unsupported because it had failed to perform a de facto specificity analysis under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5A)(D)(iii) despite record evidence providing reasons to believe the subsidy might be specific as a matter of fact. The court therefore remanded the matter again for Commerce to reconsider or further explain its determination regarding the KAV Program.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Kent Displays, Inc. v. United States, the plaintiff protested U.S. Customs and Border Protection's assessment of 25% Section 301 duties on imported electronic writing tablets (eWriters) that it had entered under the duty-free HTSUS subheading 9013.80.7000, claiming an exclusion from the U.S. Trade Representative. The government argued the goods were instead properly classified under subheading 8543.70.9960, HTSUS, subject only to a 2.6% duty and not to the Section 301 duties. The Court of International Trade granted the government's motion for summary judgment, holding that the tablets' primary function is their electronic erasing capability as a battery-powered device with an individual electrical function, making heading 8543 the correct classification under the HTSUS and Explanatory Notes. Because the goods were not classified under the subheading subject to Section 301 duties, the plaintiff's exclusion claim was moot, and the entry was ordered reliquidated under the correct provision with a refund of the excess duties paid.

business & regulatorytaxes

The case involved Deer Park Glycine, LLC's motion to consolidate two separate actions against the United States challenging decisions by the U.S. Department of Commerce regarding the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on glycine. In Court No. 23-00238, the plaintiff contested a final scope ruling determining that calcium glycinate fell outside the orders, while in Court No. 24-00016, it challenged Commerce's rejection of a subsequent scope ruling application as duplicative. The court denied the motion to consolidate, reasoning that the actions lacked sufficient common questions of law or fact, involved distinct administrative records, and were subject to different standards of review under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a and 5 U.S.C. § 706, making consolidation unnecessary for judicial economy or consistency.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a challenge to the U.S. Department of Commerce's antidumping duty investigation and final determination on certain steel nails from Taiwan, focusing on Commerce's use of a simple average of standard deviations in the denominator of the Cohen's d test for assessing differential pricing patterns among purchasers, regions, or time periods. After multiple remands from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Commerce submitted a fourth redetermination defending the simple average approach as reasonable for evaluating distinct groups and full populations without diminishing the relevance of individual standard deviations. The U.S. Court of International Trade sustained the redetermination, holding that Commerce had adequately explained its methodology in line with statutory requirements under 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(d)(B)(i) and prior appellate instructions. The court rejected arguments that the groups lacked independent existence or that weighting was necessary, concluding the choice was a reasonable exercise of agency discretion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. challenging the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's denial of its substituted unused merchandise drawback claim under 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j) for imported civil aircraft parts classified under HTSUS subheading 8803.30.00. Spirit argued that the prefatory language in the HTSUS article descriptions should not limit eligibility for drawback based on the specific 10-digit statistical reporting numbers. The Court of International Trade granted CBP's motion for summary judgment and denied Spirit's cross-motion. The court reasoned that the full HTSUS structure, including prefatory language distinguishing between Department of Defense/Coast Guard use and other uses, must be considered for proper classification and drawback determinations, and that prior HTSUS versions or unrelated rulings did not alter this outcome.

business & regulatory

This case involves a challenge by BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH to the U.S. Department of Commerce's countervailing duty determination in its 2018 investigation of forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany, focusing on whether programs including the KAV Program provided countervailable subsidies. The Court of International Trade reviewed Commerce's second remand redetermination and ordered another remand for further explanation or reconsideration. The core reasoning is that Commerce's finding of de jure specificity for the KAV Program was unsupported by the record and contrary to law, as it did not properly assess whether the program's eligibility criteria were neutral, economic in nature, and horizontal in application under the statute and Statement of Administrative Action, rather than vertical. The court directed Commerce to file a third remand redetermination within 90 days.

business & regulatory

The case involved a challenge by NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. and related parties to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s decision in the 2017–2018 antidumping administrative review of welded line pipe from Korea, specifically regarding the classification of costs from suspended production lines. The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s second remand redetermination, which reclassified NEXTEEL’s suspension losses as general and administrative expenses instead of including them in cost of goods sold for constructed value calculations. Commerce explained that these costs were company-wide, not directly attributable to specific products, and more akin to general expenses after extended shutdowns, consistent with NEXTEEL’s own statements that the losses were unrelated to manufacturing the subject merchandise. The court found Commerce’s further explanation on remand reasonable and adequately supported by the record.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by Chinese manufacturers of diamond sawblades to the U.S. Department of Commerce's assignment of an 82.05% antidumping duty rate—derived from an adverse facts available determination against non-cooperative mandatory respondents—to cooperative separate-rate respondents in the 2016–2017 administrative review of an antidumping order on diamond sawblades from China. Following a related court decision in Bosun Tools that required Commerce to reconsider the rate, the agency issued remand results lowering the rate for the plaintiffs to 41.03% based on the revised rate from the prior review period. The Court of International Trade sustained the remand results, finding them supported by substantial evidence and compliant with its prior remand order. The plaintiffs agreed with the revised rate, and the defendant-intervenor filed no comments.

business & regulatory