Justia U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Department of Commerce imposed both antidumping and countervailing duties on pneumatic tires from China under a 2012 law, 19 U.S.C. 1671, 1677f-1, that overruled the Federal Circuit’s 2011decision with respect to the same goods and permitted Commerce to impose countervailing duties with respect to non-market economy (NME) countries retroactively to proceedings initiated on or after November 20, 2006. When antidumping and countervailing duties imposed on the same goods double count for the same unfair trade advantage, the new law adjusts for double counting prospectively to proceedings initiated after March 13, 2012, but not retrospectively. The Court of International Trade upheld the decision. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Trade Court’s rejection of challenges to the new law on rehearing. The new law does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause or the Due Process Clause. View "GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

The Commerce Department determined that shrimp imported from India were being sold in the U.S. at less than fair market value. During administrative review of that antidumping order, shrimp exporters Apex and Falcon were selected as individual respondents. Commerce assessed 2.31% and 1.36% dumping margins by calculating the export price, starting with the packed price of shrimp charged to the first unaffiliated U.S. purchaser, then deducted expenses (19 U.S.C. 1677a(c)(2)(A)), including: foreign inland freight expenses, export inspection agency fees, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, foreign miscellaneous shipment charges, international freight expenses, terminal handling charges, marine insurance expenses, U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees), U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, and U.S. inland freight expenses. Neither importer made sufficient sales in India during the review period for proper comparison with U.S. sales. Commerce compared the United Kingdom for Apex, and Japan, for Falcon. The companies ship to those countries, only covering costs necessary to deliver merchandise to the named destination port. For shipments to the U.S., they pay costs associated with importation, including duties and complying with customs formalities. Domestic shrimp producers challenged the dumping margins, arguing that the export price of the merchandise should be recalculated by deduction of the amount of antidumping duties assessed and paid on their exports, to increase the dumping margins. The Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Apex Exports v. United States" on Justia Law

Best, a Hong Kong manufacturer, produces Metalized Yarn from polyester chips melted with metal nanopowders to form monofilament yarns. Best sought a pre-importation ruling concerning proper tariff classification in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS), attaching a laboratory report describing the yarn as having a fiber content of 100% polyester, with 0.7%- 0.74% metal by weight. Customs classified the yarn as metalized yarn, HTSUS 5605.00.90, dutiable at 13.2%, stating “yarn combined with metal in the form of powder is considered a metalized yarn.” Best then sought a ruing regarding a “Johnny Collar” garment made of its yarn, asserting the garment was classifiable under HTSUS 6105.90.8030 as a shirt of other textile materials (duty rate 5.6%), not HTSUS 6110.30.3053 for polyester shirts (duty rate 32%). Based on trace amounts of metal and a label that stated “100% polyester,” Customs classified the sample as man-made non-metalized fibers under HTSUS 6110.30.3053. Customs subsequently revoked the Yarn Ruling, reclassifying the yarn as a polyester yarn under HTSUS 5402.47.90 (duty rate 8%). Customs also revoked the Johnny Collar Ruling as conflicting with the Yarn Ruling, but continued to classify the garment under 6110.30.30. Best challenged the Yarn Ruling Revocation, but not the Johnny Collar revocation. The Trade Court sustained the Revocation. The Federal Circuit vacated with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Best sought reversal of a Revocation, the effect of which would be to increase Best ’s own duty rate while benefiting manufacturers of products made from its yarn. The statute does not provide jurisdiction over such requests View "Best Key Textiles Co., Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2001, the Department of Commerce imposed an antidumping duty order on honey imported from China. Dongtai was named a respondent in the 2012 tenth review of the Order. Commerce issued it non-market economy questionnaire, including Section A (General Information), and Sections C (U.S. Sales) and D (Production Factors). Dongtai timely responded to Section A, but responded to Sections C and D after receiving a one-day extension. Because the extension request was received less than six minutes before the deadline, Commerce warned Dongtai to file any future extension requests “as soon as it suspects additional time may be necessary.” Commerce issued a Supplemental Section A to address deficiencies in Dongtai’s original response. After the deadline, Dongtai requested an extension. Commerce found that “good cause [did] not exist . . . to extend retroactively” and removed the requests and Supplemental Response from the official record. Commerce determined that without the Supplemental Response, the record lacked sufficient information to calculate a separate rate for Dongtai; that Dongtai would be considered part of the China-wide entity; and that the China-wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Commerce and relied on adverse facts available to determine the dumping margin. The Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Dongtai Peak Honey Indus. Co. Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

Downhole is a U.S. importer of “drill pipe” from a Chinese producer. Drill pipe, a specialized high-strength iron alloy tube used in oil-drilling, is manufactured in stages, starting with seamless raw steel “green tube,” that is processed and welded to complete the drill pipe. Green tube can also be processed into “oil country tubular goods,” primarily casing and tubing to transport oil and gas; drill pipe is primarily used in drilling. The Department of Commerce received a petition from domestic drill pipe producers, seeking imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties on drill pipe from China. Downhole objected to the proposed scope of the investigation, arguing green tube should not be included because it was already covered by an ongoing investigation into oil country tubular goods. The Court of International Trade rejected Downhole’s scope arguments and remanded with instructions to reconsider surrogate values used for green tube. Commerce then examined all other potential surrogate values on the record and based the surrogate value for green tube on the average unit value of entries made under IHTS 7304.59.20 alone. The Trade Court and Federal Circuit affirmed the scope and industry support determinations and sustained Commerce’s Final Results as supported by substantial evidence. View "Downhole Pipe & Equip., L.P. v. United States" on Justia Law

The U.S. International Trade Commission initiated an investigation into whether a domestic industry was materially injured or threatened by imports of certain aluminum extrusions from China. The Department of Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. CWC companies submitted an amended scope request (19 C.F.R. 351.225(c)), asking Commerce to confirm that curtain wall units and other parts of curtain wall systems are subject to the orders. Curtain walls consist of components, which can be categorized as: aluminum extruded frame, with anchors, overlays, and other devices that attach the unit to the cement structure and adjoining units; infill material; and hardware to attach the curtain wall parts to the building and adjoining units. Yuanda challenged the CWC’s standing. Commerce found that CWC qualified under Tariff Act section 771(9)(C), “as manufacturers, producers, or wholesalers of a domestic like product.” Commerce determined Yuanda’s curtain wall units were within the order’s scope. The Trade Court and Federal Circuit affirmed the decision as supported by substantial evidence. View "Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng'g Co. Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

Newbridge, headquartered in Newbridge, Ireland, designs, manufactures and sells housewares and silverware around the world under the mark NEWBRIDGE HOME. Newbridge designs its products in Newbridge, Ireland, and manufactures someof its products there. In the U.S. its products are available for sale through its website and through retail outlets that feature products from Ireland. The NEWBRIDGE HOME mark is the subject of an International Registration, which was filed through the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Newbridge sought protection of the mark pursuant to the Madrid Agreement and Madrid Protocol, under which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) examines international registrations for compliance with U.S. law, 15 U.S.C. 1141. Newbridge disclaimed the word HOME apart from the mark as a whole in the application. It sought registration for listed items of silverware, jewelry, desk items and kitchenware. The Trademark Examiner refused to register the mark as being primarily geographically descriptive. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed. The Federal Circuit reversed. The evidence as a whole suggests that Newbridge, Ireland, is not generally known; to the relevant public the mark NEWBRIDGE is not primarily geographically descriptive of the goods, which is what matters. View "In re: Newbridge Cutlery Co." on Justia Law

The Thai government provides BCR program rebates to domestic manufacturers who produce and export products made from raw materials imported by domestic suppliers. TPBI manufactures polyethylene retail carrier bags in Thailand and exports them to the U.S. TPBI obtains resin from Thai domestic suppliers, who import raw materials for producing resin and pay associated import duties. To account for those duties, TPBI pays a fee to resin suppliers in exchange for certificates, which are provided to the Thai government upon export of finished products, in exchange for BCR rebates. The Department of Commerce determined that the bags were being sold in the U.S. at less than fair value and issued an antidumping duty order. Years later, Commerce conducted administrative review of that order. TPBI argued that the BCR program provided compensation for the fees paid to its suppliers and that BCR revenue should be subsumed into production costs. Commerce determined that the BCR program related to export sales rather than production costs, and declined to adjust TPBI’s cost of production. Commerce noted that BCR revenues are “somewhat analogous” to duty drawbacks, where an adjustment to the U.S. price of the product would correct for an imbalance resulting from import duties that are factored into home market prices but either rebated or not collected for exported products, but that TPBI had not claimed BCR revenue as a duty drawback. Commerce determined the antidumping margin without an offset in TPBI’s cost of production. The Court of International Trade and Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that BCR revenue was export-conditional, not relevant to the cost of production. View "Thai Plastic Bags Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

Belimo imports devices consisting of an electric motor, gears, and circuit boards, used in HVAC systems. HVAC system sensors detect and send ambient temperature to a central controller, which compares that to a user’s desired temperature. In a traditional system, the controller sends a signal to electric motors that adjust the angle of a damper blade to let in more or less hot or cold air. If a disturbance such as a strong draft moves the blade, it may become stuck in the incorrect position. Belimo’s products incorporate a programmed Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) to continuously, independently monitor blade position and maintain it at the correct angle without controller input. ASIC can adapt to receive an AC or DC controller signal, filter out unintended signals, and use stored energy to prevent the motor spinning out of control in power failures. U.S. Customs and Border Protection liquidated the imports under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) 8501.10.40 as electric motors. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, agreeing with the Court of International Trade in rejecting a claim that the products should have been classified as “automatic regulating and controlling instruments and apparatus; parts and accessories thereof” under HTSUS 9032.89.60. The devices do not automatically measure the actual value of the temperature or any variable of air, as required by that classification. View "Belimo Automation, A.G. v. United States" on Justia Law

Between July 30, 2003, and August 31, 2003, Sunline imported eight entries of freshwater crawfish tailmeat from Chinese producer Hubei, which were subject to a U.S. Department of Commerce antidumping duty order covering freshwater crawfish tailmeat from China. The Hubei Entries were entered following approval by Customs of eight single-entry bonds that covered the estimated antidumping duties and designated Hartford as surety. The Hubei Entries were made during the pendency of Hubei’s “new shipper review.” After Hubei’s new shipper review was rescinded, meaning Hubei did not qualify for an individual antidumping duty rate, Customs liquidated the Entries at the 223.01% country-wide rate. After Sunline failed to pay, Customs demanded payment from Hartford, which filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade, seeking to void its obligations under the bonds because Customs had been investigating Sunline for possible import law violations during the period in which the bonds were secured and did not inform Hartford of the investigation. The Trade Court dismissed. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Hartford did not allege any facts that establish a connection between the investigation and Sunline’s failure to pay its antidumping duties after liquidation. View "Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. United States" on Justia Law