Justia International Law Opinion Summaries

During a review of antidumping duties on multilayered wood flooring imported from China, the U.S. Department of Commerce determined company-specific dumping margins for two mandatory respondents: one received a 0% margin for cooperating, while the other received an 85.13% margin based on adverse facts available due to non-cooperation. Commerce initially calculated a "separate rate" for other eligible companies by averaging these two margins, resulting in a rate of 42.57%. Various plaintiffs, including the appellants, challenged this method, objecting to both the inclusion of the adverse facts available rate and the use of a simple average.The United States Court of International Trade reviewed the case and remanded certain issues to Commerce, including the calculation method for the separate rate. After reconsideration, Commerce adopted a weighted average approach, which reduced the separate rate to 31.63%. This change was more favorable to the appellants. After Commerce filed its final remand results, the appellants submitted comments agreeing that the new calculation method and the resulting rate were lawful and in line with the court’s instructions. They specifically requested the Trade Court to uphold Commerce’s decision. The Trade Court then sustained Commerce’s redetermination, finding it consistent with the statute and administrative guidance, and noted that no parties objected. The court also ruled that issues previously reserved for decision had become moot.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the appellants attempted to challenge the use of the adverse facts available rate and the reasonableness of the 31.63% separate rate. The Federal Circuit held that the appellants forfeited these arguments by not raising them after the new rate was determined and by expressly supporting Commerce’s revised calculation before the Trade Court. The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Trade Court. View "FUSONG JINLONG WOODEN GROUP CO., LTD. v. US " on Justia Law

A domestic importer of refractory bricks used in steelmaking sought a determination that its imported bricks, which contained varying amounts of alumina, were not subject to existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks (MCBs) from Mexico and China. The original petitions for these orders, brought by a domestic producer, had expressly limited their scope to MCBs and disclaimed coverage of magnesia alumina carbon (MAC) bricks, which incorporate alumina and are considered distinct in industry terminology.After the orders were issued, the importer requested a scope ruling that its MAC bricks were excluded from the orders due to their alumina content. The United States Department of Commerce initially ruled in favor of exclusion only for bricks with at least five percent alumina, applying this threshold in subsequent scope rulings. However, when the Magnesia Carbon Bricks Fair Trade Committee alleged that the importer was evading duties by misclassifying its products, United States Customs and Border Protection could not conclusively determine coverage and referred the matter to Commerce. The United States Court of International Trade reviewed Commerce’s application of the five percent threshold, found it inconsistent with a prior decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and remanded for reconsideration. On remand, Commerce, under protest, determined that any brick with added alumina, regardless of amount, was not covered by the orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Trade Court’s decision and affirmed. The court held that, under its prior precedent, the antidumping and countervailing duty orders do not cover MCBs containing any amount of added alumina, as industry usage and the original petition’s representations excluded all MAC bricks “by name.” Thus, Commerce could not lawfully impose a minimum alumina content threshold for exclusion, and the Trade Court’s interpretation was correct. View "FEDMET RESOURCES CORPORATION v. US " on Justia Law

A domestic importer of paper whitening chemicals, identified as a “domestic interested party” under trade law, challenged the Department of Commerce’s regulatory deadline for submitting a notice of intent to participate in a “sunset review” of antidumping duty orders. Commerce had previously imposed antidumping duties on chemicals from China and Taiwan, and after publishing a notice to initiate a sunset review, required domestic interested parties to file a notice within 15 days and substantive responses within 30 days. The importer filed its notice six days late but submitted its substantive response before the 30-day deadline. Commerce rejected both submissions due to noncompliance with the 15-day notice requirement, revoked the antidumping duty orders, and terminated the review.The United States Court of International Trade reviewed the case after the importer filed suit. The trial court found that Commerce’s 15-day notice requirement conflicted with the governing statute, which was silent on interim deadlines but required revocation if no interested party responded within 90 days. The court reasoned that the statute expects substantive content in response to the notice of initiation, and since the importer met the 30-day substantive deadline, Commerce had no discretion to reject its filing based on the missed 15-day notice. The Trade Court issued a declaratory judgment for the importer, reinstated the antidumping orders, and ordered Commerce to conduct a full sunset review with the importer’s participation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Trade Court’s judgment. The Federal Circuit held that the 15-day requirement was a permissible exercise of Commerce’s delegated authority to “fill up the details” of the statutory scheme. The court found no conflict between the regulation and the statute, determined the regulation was the product of reasoned decisionmaking, and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Commerce and its co-defendants. View "ARCHROMA U.S., INC. v. COMMERCE " on Justia Law

This case concerns the tariff classification of ten models of luxury wristwatches imported from Switzerland by Ildico Inc., the exclusive U.S. distributor of Richard Mille watches. The watches are constructed primarily of 18-karat gold but feature large transparent synthetic sapphire crystal windows on both the front and back. The back crystal allows viewing of the internal components and serves to protect the watch. The central issue is whether the presence of the crystal window on the back means the watch case is not made “wholly of precious metal,” which would affect whether the watches are classified under HTSUS heading 9101 (lower duty rates) or heading 9102 (higher duty rates).Customs and Border Protection conducted an audit in 2016 and determined that the watches should be classified under heading 9102, rather than the heading 9101 under which Ildico had declared them. Customs’ decision resulted in higher duties. After Customs denied Ildico’s protest, Ildico filed suit in the United States Court of International Trade. The Trade Court agreed with Customs, holding that the sapphire crystal backs were part of the watch cases and, since they were not made wholly of precious metal, the watches did not qualify for heading 9101. The court specifically found that the rear crystal was part of the case, even if it could also be described as “watch glass.”On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trade Court’s decision. The Federal Circuit held that, under the relevant HTSUS provisions, the synthetic sapphire crystal back is part of the “watch case.” Because the case is thus not “wholly of precious metal,” the watches cannot be classified under heading 9101 and are properly classified under heading 9102. The court also held that an alternative argument—that the crystal is a “precious stone”—was not preserved for review. View "ILDICO INC. v. US " on Justia Law

A Korean steel manufacturer faced severe financial challenges beginning in 2013 and underwent four debt-to-equity conversions during a corporate restructuring overseen by a committee of creditor banks, including a government-controlled institution. The first three conversions, between 2014 and 2018, were conducted by this creditors’ committee, while the fourth, in 2019, involved a public bidding process in which a private consortium acquired the company. The equity infusions were scrutinized as possible government subsidies subject to countervailing duties under U.S. trade law.Following a 2016 countervailing duty order by the Department of Commerce on certain Korean steel products, Commerce conducted several administrative reviews. In the fourth review, Commerce reversed its earlier findings and determined that the first three debt-to-equity conversions provided a countervailable benefit because private investor participation was found to be insignificant and the company was not equityworthy at the time. Commerce also found that the benefit of these subsidies was not extinguished by the company’s later acquisition, in part because the company did not contest the presumption of benefit pass-through.The United States Court of International Trade remanded Commerce’s findings, holding that Commerce could not change its practice of not re-examining earlier equity infusions absent new information, and that the agency’s determinations lacked sufficient justification and evidentiary support. On further remand, Commerce, under protest, found no countervailable benefit from the first three conversions, and the trial court sustained this result.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Commerce was permitted to revisit its determinations based on record evidence from later periods, and that its findings of countervailable benefit and benefit pass-through were supported by substantial evidence. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to reinstate Commerce’s original determinations. View "KG DONGBU STEEL CO., LTD. v. US " on Justia Law

A Turkish steel producer was subject to an antidumping-duty order issued in 2016 after the U.S. Department of Commerce found that two Turkish firms, including the appellant, were dumping hot-rolled steel products in the U.S., and the International Trade Commission (ITC) determined that these imports caused material injury to the U.S. industry. The appellant did not challenge the ITC’s injury determination at that time, but both Turkish firms challenged the Commerce dumping determination in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). In 2020, Commerce found that the other Turkish firm’s dumping margin was zero, leading to its exclusion from the antidumping order.After the exclusion, the appellant sought relief from the ITC, arguing that Turkish imports were now negligible, and requested: (1) reconsideration of the 2016 injury finding, (2) a changed-circumstances review (CCR), and (3) revocation of the order through a five-year sunset review. The ITC denied reconsideration and the CCR, and in the sunset review decided not to revoke the order. The appellant then filed three separate actions in the CIT to challenge these denials.The CIT sustained the ITC’s refusal to revoke the order in the sunset review, finding the ITC properly relied on its final, unchallenged 2016 injury determination and that the sunset review was forward-looking. The CIT also dismissed the CCR claim, holding that the sunset review provided all the relief a CCR could have provided. Finally, the CIT dismissed the challenge to the denial of reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction, because the appellant could have brought a timely action under the proper statute in 2016.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed all three CIT judgments, holding that the ITC’s actions and the CIT’s dismissals were correct under the law and statutory framework. View "EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC " on Justia Law

The case concerns an anti-dumping investigation initiated by the U.S. Department of Commerce in 2016 into hardwood-plywood products produced in and imported from China. Commerce selected two mandatory respondents, Chengen and Bayley, for individual investigation. Several other exporters and producers, including Jiangyang Wood and Dehua TB, requested voluntary respondent status. The investigation centered on how Chengen calculated its main raw material input—poplar log volumes—which was crucial for determining dumping margins.Initially, Chengen responded to Commerce’s questionnaires by referencing third-party invoices but did not disclose that it used a Conversion Chart, possibly a Chinese National Standard, for measuring log volumes. During the verification stage, Commerce discovered this chart and, suspecting Chengen’s prior responses were incomplete, added only the two-page Conversion Chart to the record, rejecting the rest of a 12-page document Chengen provided at that time. Commerce then switched from the usual factors of production analysis to the intermediate input methodology, using veneer values instead of log volumes, and calculated a 183.36% dumping margin for Chengen and non-mandatory respondents.The United States Court of International Trade (Trade Court) repeatedly remanded the case, directing Commerce to accept the full 12-page document and reconsider its methodology. On remand, Commerce eventually assigned a 0% margin to Chengen and the non-mandatory respondents, and excluded Jiangyang Wood and Dehua TB from the all-others rate due to their qualifying as voluntary respondents.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Commerce did not abuse its discretion by including only the Conversion Chart in the record and not the rest of the 12-page document. The court found substantial evidence supporting Commerce’s use of the intermediate input methodology and reinstated the 183.36% margin for Chengen and non-mandatory respondents. The court also affirmed the Trade Court’s approval of Commerce’s exclusion of Jiangyang Wood and Dehua TB from the all-others rate. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "LINYI CHENGEN IMPORT AND EXPORT CO., LTD. v. US " on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a company seeking a refund of customs duties (drawback) on imported petroleum derivatives, filed a drawback claim with U.S. Customs on March 10, 2020, identifying forty-eight import entries and seeking over $1.3 million. Customs did not liquidate the claim within one year, but on April 30, 2021, it liquidated the claim at zero, determining the plaintiff was not entitled to any drawback. The company's appeal did not challenge the merits of this determination but argued that, by operation of law, its claim should have been automatically (“deemed”) liquidated at the amount it initially asserted, because Customs did not act within one year. The critical factual issue was that, while all underlying import entries had been liquidated by March 10, 2021, not all had become final, as finality requires an additional 180-day period after liquidation.The United States Court of International Trade reviewed the case, focusing on the statutory provisions governing when drawback claims are deemed liquidated under 19 U.S.C. § 1504. The court concluded that because the relevant import entries had not yet become final within one year of the drawback claim’s filing, the “deemed liquidation” provision of § 1504(a)(2)(A) did not apply. Instead, the alternative procedures of § 1504(a)(2)(B) governed, which require additional steps by the claimant that were not taken. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment for the government.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court held that when the conditions of § 1504(a)(2)(B) are present—specifically, when underlying import entries are not yet final—automatic deemed liquidation under § 1504(a)(2)(A) does not apply. Customs’ action in liquidating the claim at zero was therefore lawful, and the lower court’s judgment was affirmed. View "PERFORMANCE ADDITIVES, LLC v. US " on Justia Law

The dispute centers on whether imported plastic shelf dividers containing magnets are subject to U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty orders covering raw flexible magnets from China. Fasteners for Retail, Inc. imports shelf dividers composed of flexible magnets bonded to rigid plastic, which makes the magnets inflexible. The United States Department of Commerce had previously issued duty orders with scope language covering certain flexible magnets, regardless of shape, color, or packaging. Fasteners for Retail requested a scope ruling from Commerce to clarify whether their shelf dividers fell within the scope of these orders.Commerce issued a final scope ruling, finding that although the plain language of the duty orders might appear to include Siffron’s shelf dividers, prior scope rulings and interpretative sources (known as (k)(1) sources) provided further guidance. Based on these sources, Commerce determined that magnets rendered inflexible by attachment to other materials, such as plastic, are not included within the term “flexible magnets” under the duty orders. The United States Court of International Trade reviewed Commerce’s ruling and upheld it, finding Commerce’s determination reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case de novo, applying the same standard as the Trade Court. The court held that Commerce has discretion under the current regulations to consult (k)(1) sources in interpreting scope language regardless of apparent ambiguity. The court concluded that Commerce’s determination that Siffron’s shelf dividers are not “flexible magnets” under the duty orders was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. Therefore, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Court of International Trade, sustaining Commerce’s scope ruling that the shelf dividers are not subject to the duty orders. View "MAGNUM MAGNETICS CORP. v. US " on Justia Law

In this case, the central issue arose during a countervailing duty investigation into phosphate fertilizers imported from Morocco and Russia. The International Trade Commission (Commission) collected information through questionnaires sent to various parties, including domestic and foreign producers. The Commission’s longstanding practice was to automatically designate all questionnaire responses as confidential, regardless of whether the submitting party requested confidentiality or whether the information would qualify for such treatment under the relevant statute. This led to heavy redactions in the administrative record when the investigation was challenged in court.A Moroccan producer, OCP S.A., sought review of the Commission’s injury determination in the United States Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT initially remanded the injury determination due to insufficient evidentiary support. When the remand record again included substantial redactions, the CIT held a hearing to scrutinize the Commission’s confidentiality designations. After reviewing arguments from the Commission and affected parties, the CIT concluded that the Commission’s practice of automatically treating all questionnaire responses as confidential was unauthorized by law. The CIT found that much of the redacted information was either publicly available, generalized, or outdated, and thus not entitled to confidential treatment, with only a small portion warranting protection.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the CIT’s Confidentiality Opinion and Order. The Federal Circuit held that the governing statute does not abrogate the common law right of public access to judicial records and that the Commission’s blanket confidentiality rule conflicts with statutory requirements, which demand public disclosure of non-confidential information and proper justification for confidentiality. The Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT’s order that required the Commission to comply with statutory standards for confidentiality and to cease automatic confidential designation of questionnaire responses. View "In re United States" on Justia Law