Timothy C. Stanceu

The case concerns challenges by the State of Washington and two importers to Proclamation No. 11012, which imposed temporary import surcharges under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to address international payments issues. The court had previously granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, declaring the proclamation invalid as contrary to law, permanently enjoining its application to the plaintiffs, and ordering refunds of duties paid. Defendants moved for a stay of that judgment pending appeal to the Federal Circuit. The court denied the stay, finding that the government had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits or that the balance of equities and public interest supported delaying enforcement, noting Congress's constitutional authority over tariffs.

business & regulatoryfederal powertaxes

In this case before the U.S. Court of International Trade, multiple states and private companies challenged a presidential proclamation that imposed trade measures based on findings of a serious balance-of-payments deficit under Section 122, seeking to invalidate the proclamation through summary judgment. The majority of the court granted summary judgment and entered a permanent injunction against enforcement of the proclamation for plaintiffs with standing, specifically the State of Washington, Burlap and Barrel, Inc., and Basic Fun, Inc., while dismissing claims by numerous other states due to lack of standing. The core reasoning centered on the proclamation's failure to align with statutory requirements for defining and addressing balance-of-payments deficits, rejecting the government's interpretive arguments. A dissenting judge would have denied summary judgment to allow further procedural steps under court rules rather than invalidating the proclamation outright.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case Mosaic Co. v. United States concerned a challenge by The Mosaic Company to the U.S. Department of Commerce's remand redetermination in an administrative review of a countervailing duty order on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco. The court sustained Commerce's finding that a subsidy program involving reductions in tax fines and penalties for OCP S.A. was not de facto specific and thus not countervailable. The core reasoning was that record evidence, including OCP's large size relative to Morocco's economy and its receipt of a small percentage of total reductions, supported Commerce's conclusion that the benefit was not disproportionately large. The court determined that the agency's decision was supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law.

business & regulatorytaxes

This case involves U.S. catfish producers challenging a 2024 decision by the U.S. Department of Commerce concluding an administrative review of an antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The plaintiffs argued that Commerce failed to respond to a Vietnamese exporter's lack of cooperation and improperly ignored alleged clerical errors in the final results. The court rejected the cooperation claim but found that Commerce erred by rejecting the ministerial error allegation as untimely and excluding it from the record. It therefore remanded the matter to Commerce to admit the allegation, determine if the errors exist, and make any necessary corrections to the duty rates.

business & regulatory

This case concerned the proper tariff classification by U.S. Customs and Border Protection of imported PC50 supermodules, which are incomplete assemblies of components later used to build stationary hydrogen fuel cell power generators. Plaintiff HyAxiom contested the agency's reliquidation of its entry under a dutiable provision at 3% ad valorem and sought duty-free treatment. The court granted the plaintiff's renewed motion for summary judgment and denied the government's cross-motion, holding that the merchandise is correctly classified under HTSUS subheading 8405.10.00. The decision rested on a joint statement of undisputed facts establishing that gas generation is the principal function of the PC50 and that the imported articles possess the essential character of a gas-generating machine under General Rules of Interpretation 1 and 2(a) and the notes to section XVI of the HTSUS.

business & regulatory

The case involved the United States government seeking to recover a civil penalty and unpaid duties from Rayson Global, Inc. and its CEO Doris Cheng for negligently importing mattress innersprings from China while falsely declaring Thailand as the country of origin, which resulted in the evasion of ordinary, antidumping, and Section 301 duties. The court granted the government's motion for default judgment after the defendants failed to respond to the second amended complaint. The decision awarded a penalty of $3,381,607.03 and ordered payment of $2,431,225.93 in lost revenue plus interest, based on the acceptance of the well-pled factual allegations in the complaint regarding the negligent violation of Section 592 of the Tariff Act.

business & regulatory

This case involved imported door thresholds from China, each containing an aluminum extrusion component, and whether that component fell within the scope of existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions. After the Federal Circuit vacated prior rulings that had placed the components outside the orders' scope, the Court of International Trade addressed the appellate mandate directing reinstatement of the non-protested portions of the Department of Commerce's First Remand Redetermination. The court reinstated Commerce's determination that the aluminum extrusion parts—but not the other components of the thresholds—were subject to the duties, while noting that the protested portion regarding a finished merchandise exclusion had been addressed separately. The decision was issued to effectuate the Federal Circuit's instructions and govern liquidation of the relevant entries.

business & regulatory

This case concerned whether aluminum extrusion components in door thresholds imported from China by Columbia Aluminum Products, LLC, were covered by existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. After the Federal Circuit vacated prior rulings and directed reinstatement of the non-protested portions of Commerce's First Remand Redetermination, the Court of International Trade entered judgment accordingly. Commerce's reinstated determination held that the aluminum extrusion components were within the scope of the orders, while other components of the assembled thresholds were not. The court limited its action to implementing the appellate mandate without addressing broader statutory questions about upstream components.

business & regulatory

This case involved challenges by The Mosaic Company and OCP S.A. to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in the first administrative review of a countervailing duty order on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco, covering the period from late 2020 through 2021. Commerce had determined the subsidy rates applicable to OCP, a state-owned producer, including findings on various government programs. The U.S. Court of International Trade sustained most of Commerce's determinations but remanded the case for reconsideration of whether a subsidy arising from Morocco's tax fines and penalties reduction program was de facto specific to certain enterprises. The court rejected OCP's arguments that Commerce lacked authority to investigate certain alleged subsidies or that statutory provisions imposed stricter evidentiary limits on such investigations. The remand was limited to allowing Commerce to address the specificity issue in a new determination.

business & regulatory

The case involved Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's final less-than-fair-value determination concluding an antidumping duty investigation of utility-scale wind towers from Spain. After two prior remands, Commerce submitted a Second Remand Redetermination that calculated a 28.55% dumping margin for Siemens Gamesa and its affiliated entities. The court sustained the redetermination over objections from the Wind Tower Trade Coalition, which argued that Siemens Gamesa should not have been investigated, that it was improperly collapsed with related companies, and that Commerce's constructed export price calculation was unlawful. The court concluded that Commerce's choices were reasonable, adequately explained, and supported by substantial evidence on the record.

business & regulatory

This case involved Brazilian honey exporters challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's final determination in an antidumping investigation on raw honey imports from Brazil, which concluded that the imports were sold at less than fair value. Following the court's earlier remand for reconsideration of deficiencies in that determination, Commerce issued a remand redetermination that assigned a 10.52% estimated dumping margin to the plaintiffs. The court sustained the remand redetermination, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence on the record and that Commerce had reasonably remedied the prior issues while adequately explaining its findings.

business & regulatory

The case involved the United States seeking to recover a civil penalty and unpaid duties from Rayson Global, Inc. and its CEO Doris Cheng under section 592 of the Tariff Act of 1930, alleging negligent importation of innersprings with false declarations of origin from Thailand instead of China to avoid duties. The court denied the government's motion for default judgment without prejudice. The core reasoning was that the complaint did not sufficiently plead facts supporting the claimed domestic value of the merchandise, which was necessary to justify the penalty amount equal to that value.

business & regulatorytaxesprocedure

The case involved challenges by domestic producer The Mosaic Company and Moroccan producer OCP S.A. to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final countervailing duty determination and resulting order on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco, which identified six subsidy programs and set a 19.97% rate for OCP. After an initial remand, the court reviewed Commerce's Remand Redetermination and sustained some findings while rejecting others. The court ordered a second remand because Commerce had not properly considered Mosaic's proposed method for allocating headquarters, support, and debt costs to beneficiated phosphate rock production, and because it misinterpreted 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5A)(D)(iii)(III) and lacked record support in concluding that Morocco's tax fines and penalties reduction program was de facto specific.

business & regulatorytaxesprocedure

The case involved Printing Textiles, LLC challenging a determination by the U.S. Department of Commerce that its imported "Canvas Banner Matisse" product fell within the scope of an antidumping duty order on certain artist canvas from China. The plaintiff sought judgment on the agency record, arguing that Commerce's scope ruling was unlawful and that the order was unconstitutionally vague as applied. The court denied the motion and entered judgment for the United States, holding that Commerce's conclusion was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law, as the product qualified as a printable canvas used for art reproduction. The court also rejected the due process claim, finding the scope language sufficiently clear to provide notice.

business & regulatory

The case involved Chandan Steel Limited challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's assignment of a 145.25% antidumping duty rate on stainless steel flanges from India in an administrative review, where Commerce applied total adverse facts available under the Tariff Act after finding that Chandan repeatedly misreported its foreign sales, cost of production, and other data. The court had previously sustained the rate in an earlier decision. Chandan then moved for reconsideration, arguing that the court failed to address certain of its arguments regarding the application of facts otherwise available and adverse inferences. The court denied the motion, concluding that substantial record evidence supported Commerce's findings that Chandan did not submit information in the form and manner requested and did not act to the best of its ability, and that Commerce acted within its discretion in disregarding the submissions and using the highest petition rate.

business & regulatory

In HyAxiom, Inc. v. United States, the plaintiff challenged U.S. Customs and Border Protection's denial of a protest regarding the tariff classification of imported PC50 supermodules, components of stationary hydrogen fuel cell generators, after the agency reliquidated the entry under a dutiable provision at 3% ad valorem rather than the duty-free rate claimed by the importer. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court of International Trade denied both motions, holding that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to the principal function of the merchandise, which prevents resolution of the correct classification under the relevant HTSUS headings without further proceedings.

business & regulatory

This case involved Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd. challenging a countervailing duty determination by the U.S. Department of Commerce in the eighth administrative review of an order on narrow woven ribbons from China for the 2018 period. The agency had initially found that Yama benefited from multiple subsidy programs, including the Export Buyer’s Credit Program at a 10.54% rate, synthetic yarn at 27.74%, and caustic soda at 0.27%, resulting in a total rate of 42.20%. After a prior court remand in Yama I directing reconsideration of the Export Buyer’s Credit Program finding, Commerce issued a redetermination removing that subsidy while upholding the others based on world price benchmarks and adverse inferences regarding government involvement in the Chinese market. The court sustained the redetermination, concluding that the remaining subsidy rates for synthetic yarn and caustic soda were supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.

business & regulatory

The case concerned a challenge by Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd. to the U.S. Department of Commerce's determination of countervailing duty subsidy rates applicable to imports of ribbons and bows, specifically involving the Export Buyer’s Credit Program. In response to a prior court remand, Commerce issued a Second Remand Redetermination that set a new subsidy rate of 0.87% for that program and recalculated Yama's total subsidy rate at 22.20%. No parties submitted objections or substantive comments on the redetermination. The court reviewed the submission, confirmed that it complied with the earlier opinion and order, and therefore sustained the redetermination.

business & regulatory

This case involved Brazilian honey exporters challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's final determination in an antidumping duty investigation of raw honey imports, which found sales at less than fair value and assigned the plaintiffs an 83.72% dumping margin. The U.S. Court of International Trade reviewed the agency's decision and concluded that it relied on factual findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record. As a result, the court remanded the matter to Commerce for reconsideration of its application of adverse facts available under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e and for calculation of a new estimated dumping margin for the plaintiffs.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by Brazilian honey exporters to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final determination in an antidumping duty investigation on raw honey imports from Brazil, which assigned them an 83.72% dumping margin. The Court of International Trade reviewed the plaintiffs' contest of the affirmative less-than-fair-value finding and remanded the matter to Commerce for reconsideration. The court concluded that Commerce's decision to apply adverse facts available under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e relied on factual findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record, requiring a new estimated dumping margin calculation.

business & regulatory