Justia International Trade Opinion Summaries

The Department of Commerce initiated a countervailing duty investigation concerning imports of softwood lumber products from Canada and individually investigated five groups of companies that produced and/or exported covered products. Commerce issued a final determination, imposing duties on the products of those companies at company-specific rates ranging from 3.34% to 18.19%, with an “all-others” rate, 14.19%. Within days of publication of the countervailing duty (CVD) order in January 2018, about 36 Canadian companies that alleged they were subject to the all-others rate requested “expedited review” to give them individually determined rates. Commerce initiated that review and ultimately awarded the individual requesters reduced or de minimis CVD rates.A domestic trade group filed suit, arguing that Commerce lacked statutory authority to create the expedited-review process. Canadian parties intervened and, with the United States, asserted that Commerce had the authority to adopt the expedited-review procedures of 19 C.F.R. 351.214(k) to give exporters a chance to secure individual rates shortly after the publication of a CVD order, arguing for the existence of such authority chiefly in provisions of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 108 Stat. 4809 (1994). The Trade Court ruled against Commerce. The Federal Circuit reversed, concluding that the Secretary had statutory authority to adopt the expedited-review process as a procedure for implementing statutory provisions that authorize individualized determinations in CVD proceedings, 19 U.S.C. 1667f1(e), 1677m, 3513(a)(2). View "Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States" on Justia Law

Corning filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission alleging FS violated 19 U.S.C. 1337 by importing high-density fiber optic equipment that infringed four patents that generally relate to fiber optic technology commonly used in data centers. After investigating, the ALJ found that FS’ importation of high-density fiber optic equipment violated section 337; that FS induced infringement of two claims of the 320 patent, multiple claims of the 456 patent, and four claims of the 153 patent; and that FS’ accused modules directly infringed claims of the 206 patent. The ALJ adopted the Office of Unfair Import Investigations’ construction of “a front opening” as recited in the claims. The ALJ rejected invalidity challenges, including arguments that certain claims of the 320 and 456 patents were not enabled.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s determination that FS violated section 337, and issuance a general exclusion order prohibiting the importation of infringing high-density fiber optic equipment and components thereof and a cease-and-desist order directed to FS. The court upheld the enablement determination and the claim construction of “a front opening.” View "FS.com Inc. v. International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

The U.S. Department of Commerce initiated an antidumping duty investigation on certain tapered roller bearings (TRBs) from China, 19 U.S.C. 1673, and established a country-wide anti-dumping duty for TRBs from China. In 2009, Commerce revised the rate to 92.84%. Since 2017, ZMC had been granted separate rate status. An interested domestic party requested a review of ZMC’s 2016-2017 entries and submitted data indicating de facto control of ZMC by the government. In response to a questionnaire issued by Commerce, ZMC provided details about its corporate structure.After assessing ZMC’s corporate structure, Commerce preliminarily found that ZMC failed to rebut the presumption of de facto government control over its export activities. The Court of International Trade held that Commerce erred in rejecting a revised translation of Articles of Association. On remand, Commerce reviewed the revised translation but maintained its determination that ZMC failed to rebut the presumption of de facto government control. The Trade Court affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Commerce’s determination that ZMC was not entitled to a separate rate was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence because a labor union is the majority shareholder with significant rights over ZMC and has overlapping membership with the employee stock-ownership committee. View "Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2015, the Department of Commerce received petitions from domestic producers requesting that Commerce impose antidumping and countervailing duties on corrosion-resistant steel (CORE) exports from China. Commerce initiated investigations and published orders. In 2019, Commerce initiated investigations to determine whether exports of CORE from the UAE were circumventing the China CORE orders. The Court of International Trade judgment affirmed the subsequent circumvention determination. In making its determination, Commerce analyzed the circumvention factors and subfactors provided by 19 U.S.C. 1677j(b).The Federal Circuit affirmed Commerce’s circumvention determination as reasonable and supported by substantial evidence with respect to “pattern of trade,” “level of investment,” “nature of the production process,” and “extent of production facilities.” Commerce’s analysis of the “value-added” subfactor was erroneous because Commerce did not reasonably explain why it rejected financial data that were purported to show a significant value added but the error was harmless because it was limited to a single factual finding within a multi-factor test. View "Al Ghurair Iron & Steel LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

Reynolds filed a complaint at the International Trade Commission alleging that Philip Morris violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. 1337, through the importation and sale of tobacco products (the IQOS line of electronic nicotine delivery system products) that infringed certain claims of the 123 and 915 patents. The patents are directed to electrically powered “smoking articles” that heat tobacco instead of burning it, providing an inhalable substance in vapor or aerosol form. After an investigation, the Commission barred Philip Morris and its affiliates from importing products infringing the asserted patents.The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Commission satisfied its Section 337 duty to “consult with” the Department of Health and Human Services and asked interested government agencies, including the FDA, to provide written submissions on the public interest factor. The Commission provided a sufficient basis for the issuance of an exclusion order. Philip Morris’s argument that Reynolds’ products that had not received FDA authorization are precluded from consideration by Section 337 for purposes of its domestic industry requirement has no merit. The court also upheld findings of non-obviousness and infringement concerning the patents. View "Philip Morris Products S.A. v. International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

In 2017-2018, Borusan imported circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes that were subject to decades-old antidumping duties. In 2018, Presidential Proclamation 9705 separately imposed a duty on imported steel articles (including Borusan’s carbon steel pipe) under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, 19 U.S.C. 1862. In the annual administrative review of the antidumping duties owed on Borusan’s imports for May 2017–April 2018, the Department of Commerce treated the Proclamation 9705 duty as a “United States import dut[y]” under 19 U.S.C. 1677a(c)(2)(A), resulting in higher antidumping duties for Borusan’s imports.The Court of International Trade and Federal Circuit affirmed. Commerce correctly determined that the particular duty imposed by Proclamation 9705 is a “United States import dut[y]” under 19 U.S.C. 1677a(c)(2)(A). Proclamation 9705 makes clear that the newly-imposed duty was to add to, not partly or wholly offset, the antidumping duties that would be due without the new duty The antidumping duty must be calculated as if the Proclamation 9705 duty did not exist. This treatment is not inconsistent with Commerce’s long-recognized categorical exclusion of antidumping duties themselves from classification as “United States import duties.” Antidumping duties cannot be subtracted in the calculation of dumping margins (and hence antidumping duties), because doing so would produce a spiraling circularity. View "Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States" on Justia Law

The Department of Commerce issued duty orders covering imports from China of “aluminum extrusions which are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion process, made from” specified aluminum alloys; "parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, window frames, door frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or furniture." The scope includes aluminum extrusion components that are attached (e.g., by welding or fasteners) to form subassemblies, i.e., partially assembled merchandise unless imported as part of the finished goods “kit.” The Orders exclude “finished merchandise containing aluminum extrusions as parts that are fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry, such as finished windows with glass, doors with glass or vinyl, picture frames with glass pane and backing material, and solar panels and “finished goods containing aluminum extrusions that are entered unassembled in a ‘finished goods kit.’” A finished goods kit is a packaged combination of parts that contains, at the time of importation, all of the necessary parts to fully assemble a final finished good and requires no further finishing or fabrication, such as cutting or punching, and is assembled “as is” into a finished product.Commerce, the Trade Court, and the Federal Circuit concluded that CCM’s solar panel mounts are subject to the Orders. The mounts are not eligible for “finished merchandise” exclusion because the mounts are just one component of a downstream product—i.e., a solar panel mounting system. View "China Custom Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2018, under the Trade Expansion Act, 19 U.S.C. 1862, the Secretary of Commerce reported to the President that steel imports threatened national security by contributing to unsustainably low use of domestic steel-producing capacity. The President, agreeing with the finding, issued Proclamation 9705, imposing higher tariffs on steel imports from certain countries but providing for monitoring and future adjustments. In 2020, the President issued Proclamation 9980, which, based on the required monitoring, raised tariffs on imports of steel derivatives such as nails and fasteners. The Trade Court held Proclamation 9980 to be unauthorized by the statute because the new derivatives tariffs were imposed after the passing of certain deadlines; within 90 days of receiving the Secretary’s report, the President must determine whether to concur in the finding and, if so, within the same 90 days “the President shall” also “determine the nature and duration of the action.”In the meantime, in another case, the Federal Circuit upheld a presidential proclamation that increased tariffs on steel beyond Proclamation 9705’s rate, concluding that when the President, within the Act’s time limits, adopts a plan that contemplates future contingency-dependent modifications, those time limits do not preclude the President from adding to the initial import impositions to help achieve the originally stated national-security objective if the underlying findings and objective have not grown stale.The Federal Circuit then upheld Proclamation 9980, reversing the Trade Court. The proclamation’s new imposition reaches imports that are within section 232’s authorization of presidential action based on the Secretary’s finding and there is no staleness or other persuasive reason for overriding the President’s judgment. View "PrimeSource Building Products, Inc.v, United States" on Justia Law

Acquisition imported tires manufactured by Shandong from China. Shandong tires were subject to a countervailing duty order; Acquisition deposited estimated duties for the entries at the "all others" rate of 30.61%. Commerce initiated an administrative review of the duty order covering 2016 entries, instructing Customs to suspend the liquidation (final assessment of the duties owed) of entries under review. Before the review was completed, Shandong withdrew. Commerce ordered Customs to liquidate Shandong-manufactured entries imported in 2016. The Acquisition entries were liquidated with final duties assessed at 30.61%. Importers that wish to challenge the liquidation of their entries can file a protest within 180 days, 19 U.S.C. 1514(a)(5), (c)(3)(A). Acquisition did not do so. Commerce later set the final duty rates for the 2016 entries at 15.56% for “non-selected companies under review.” Acquisition then filed protests to Customs’ failure to refund the difference between the 30.61% rate and the 15.56% rate, arguing that Shandong was the same company as another company that had remained under review.Customs denied the protests as untimely. The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Acquisition’s subsequent complaint. The Trade court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Acquisition could have timely protested the liquidations of these entries on the theory that Customs had improperly liquidated them because the manufacturer of Acquisition’s goods was participating in an administrative review. View "Acquisition 362, LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

MSI is a U.S. importer of QSPs–stone composite building materials, used primarily for countertops. Production of QSPs involves the creation of a QSP slab from raw materials and fabrication that transforms the slab into a finished product. Cambria, a domestic quartz slab producer, petitioned for the imposition of antidumping duties on QSPs from India. MSI challenged Cambria’s standing because Cambria failed to include QSP “fabricators” as domestic industry “producers” in its industry support calculation. “Domestic producers or workers” is defined as interested parties who are eligible to file a petition under 19 U.S.C. 1673a(b)(1)]. “Interested parties” include “a manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler in the United States of a domestic like product,” 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(C). The terms “manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler” are not defined.The Department of Commerce found that “the fabrication process does not change the fundamental physical characteristics imparted during the slab production process,” and that “producers” did not include “fabricators.” The Trade Court and Federal Circuit affirmed, as supported by substantial evidence, Commerce’s interpretation of the term “producers” as an entity that requires a stake in the domestic industry and use of the sufficient production-related activities test to determine that the fabricators did not have a sufficient stake in the domestic industry to qualify as “producers.” View "Pokarna Engineered Stone Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law