This case involved a Chinese exporter of fresh garlic challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in the fifteenth administrative review of an antidumping duty order on garlic from China. The plaintiff contested Commerce's choices of surrogate financial statements for calculating financial ratios, surrogate values for labor and raw garlic bulbs, and the application of zeroing in the dumping margin calculation. After two prior remands addressing these issues, Commerce submitted second remand results, which the court reviewed under protest regarding the garlic bulb valuation. The court sustained the results, finding that the agency's determinations on the remaining issues were adequately supported and that no further remand was warranted because the plaintiff had not pursued one claim in this proceeding.
This case involved a Chinese producer of polyester staple fiber contesting the U.S. Department of Commerce's Final Determination in the fourth administrative review of an antidumping duty order on such fiber from China, arguing that the calculated dumping margin double-counted energy costs by including them both in surrogate financial ratios derived from P.T. Tifico's financial statements and separately in the factors of production database. After two remands, Commerce's second remand results concluded that the selected financial statements captured all energy costs within manufacturing overhead without a separate breakout, so adding them to the database would result in double-counting. The court sustained the second remand results, holding that Commerce had adequately resolved the double-counting issue on the existing administrative record.
This case involves a Chinese exporter challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in the fifteenth administrative review of an antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from China, specifically contesting the agency's choices of surrogate financial statements, surrogate values for raw garlic bulbs and labor wages, and its use of zeroing in margin calculations. After an initial remand, the court reviewed Commerce's redetermination and sustained the agency's revised surrogate value for labor and its continued application of zeroing. The court again remanded the matter for further consideration of the surrogate value for garlic bulbs and the selection of financial statements used to calculate surrogate financial ratios, finding those aspects required additional analysis or explanation by the agency.
This case involves a Chinese producer challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in the fourth administrative review of an antidumping duty order on polyester staple fiber from China, specifically alleging that the calculated margin double-counted energy costs by including coal in the factors of production database while also using financial statements that already reflected those costs. Following an initial remand in Zhaoqing Tifo I directing Commerce to analyze the double-counting claim, the agency instead reconsidered its prior selection of surrogate financial statements from P.T. Tifico. The court held that this exceeded the scope of the remand order, as the plaintiff's narrow claim did not require revisiting the financial statement choice and no scenario would necessitate it. The matter was therefore remanded a second time for Commerce to address whether the inclusion of coal results in double-counting of energy inputs, to explain its reasoning with reference to record evidence, and to consider reopening the record if needed.
In this case from the U.S. Court of International Trade, a Turkish producer of standard pipe challenged the Department of Commerce's final results in the 2011-2012 administrative review of an antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipe from Turkey. The dispute centered on whether Commerce properly excluded 'yield loss' (scrap and second-quality pipe byproducts) from the plaintiff's duty drawback adjustment when calculating its dumping margin. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the agency record and remanded the action to Commerce, holding that the agency had not adequately explained its determination or connected it to the governing statute and record evidence. The court directed Commerce on remand to provide a full, coherent explanation of its practice for treating yield loss in duty drawback adjustments.
The case involved the United States seeking to recover a $30,000 civil penalty imposed by Customs on licensed customs broker Paul Puentes for multiple violations of 19 U.S.C. § 1641(d), including deceiving clients on merchandise processing fees by submitting altered entry summaries, filing late or failing to file entry summaries, and misrepresenting the importer of record across numerous entries for various clients over an extended period. Puentes did not respond to the complaint or seek relief from the penalty. The Court of International Trade granted the government's motion for default judgment, taking the factual allegations as true due to the default and concluding that the maximum penalty was reasonable and supported by the facts and law given the scale and nature of the violations.