The U.S. Court of International Trade this week posted and / or released the following opinions and actions. For an electronic version of text of the slip opinions, click on the direct hyperlinks to the
court’s website, as provided below:
United States Steel Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 12-91 (CIT June 28, 2012): Concerning the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India, the court affirmed ITA’s final results of redetermination pursuant to second remand.
Baroque Timber Indus. (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 12-90 (CIT June 27, 2012): In a consolidated motion for review of determinations made by Commerce’s antidumping duty investigation of multilayered wood flooring from China, the court ordered further briefing with regard to defendant’s motion to dismiss.
OTR Wheel Engineering, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op 12-89 (CIT June 27, 2012): Concerning a challenge of Commerce’s final scope ruling regarding an antidumping duty order and countervailing duty order concerning certain pneumatic off-the-road tires from China, the court remanded to Commerce for further evaluation.
Salem Minerals Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 12-88 (CIT June 26, 2012): Concerning plaintiff’s complaint concerning U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s classification of imported “gold leaf vials” from China, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the merchandise was properly classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of United States (HTSUS) subheading 7115.90.30 (2005)—not under HTSUS heading 7114 (2005).
The following confidential opinions were publicly released:
Thai Plastic Bags Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 12-86 (CIT June 25, 2012; released June 18, 2012): Concerning the fifth administrative review of the antidumping order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand, the plaintiffs challenge Commerce's: (1) adjustments to cost allocation methodology; (2) use of “zeroing;” (3) cost adjustment; and (4) determination of 2009 inventory valuation losses. The court, on issues two and three, remanded to Commerce for reconsideration and further explanation; concerning issues one and four, affirmed Commerce's determination.
Tianjin Mach. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 12-83 (CIT June 25, 2012; released June 14, 2012): Concerning the final results of redetermination following a second remand of Commerce’s final results of the thirteenth administrative review of four antidumping duty orders on imports of heavy forged hand tools from China, the court concluded that Commerce’s determination of adverse facts available rates for the plaintiffs is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the final results were sustained.
For more information, contact a professional with KPMG’s Trade & Customs practice:
Douglas Zuvich, (312) 665-1022
McLoughlin, (267) 256-2614
Todd R. Smith,
Luis A. Abad, (212) 954-3094
Amie Ahanchian, (202) 533-3247
Or your local KPMG Trade & Customs professional.
* * * * *
ANY TAX ADVICE IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY KPMG TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, BY A CLIENT OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF (i) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED ON ANY TAXPAYER OR (ii) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY MATTERS ADDRESSED HEREIN.
The information contained herein is of a general nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. Applicability of the information to specific situations should be determined through consultation with your tax adviser.
Back to top