Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

U.S. Customs and Border Protection denied Ford’s claims for post-entry duty refunds. The Court of International Trade upheld the denial and the Federal Circuit vacated. While 19 U.S.C. 1520(d) required Ford to file the relevant certificates of origin within one year, and its failure to do so could not be excused by 19 C.F.R. 10.112, Customs failed to adequately explain why it treats post-entry claims for refunds under 1520(d) differently depending on whether they were filed on paper or through the reconciliation program, under the North American Free Trade Agreement, which allows qualifying goods to enter the United States duty free(art. 502). View "Ford Motor Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

The U.S. Department of Commerce used a practice known as “zeroing” to determine antidumping duties in administrative reviews, even though Commerce no longer uses zeroing in investigations establishing antidumping orders. Using zeroing, negative dumping margins (margins of sales of merchandise sold at nondumped prices) are given a value of zero and only positive dumping margins (margins for sales of merchandise sold at dumped prices) are aggregated, to avoid a negative number that would offset a positive margin for another averaging group. The statute, 19 U.S.C. 1677(35)(A), does not mention zeroing. However, Commerce has emphasized language that the dumping margin “means the amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price or constructed export price of the subject merchandise.” Commerce attributes the differing interpretations as necessary to comply with international obligations, while preserving a practice that serves recognized policy goals. Following two remands, the Court of International Trade and Federal Circuit affirmed. No rule of law precludes Commerce from interpreting the statute differently in different circumstances as long as it provides an adequate explanation. View "Union Steel v. United States" on Justia Law

Kahrs imports engineered wood flooring panels for distribution to flooring wholesalers. Kahrs classified the products as “assembled parquet panels” under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 4418.30.00, a duty-free provision for “Builders’ joinery and carpentry of wood, including cellular wood panels and assembled parquet panels; shingles and shakes: parquet panels.” Customs subsequently liquidated Kahrs’ merchandise under HTSUS 4412, which covers “plywood, veneered panels and similar laminated wood,” at a duty rate of eight percent ad valorem. Customs denied a protest and the Court of International Trade found that Customs correctly classified Kahrs’ merchandise as plywood under heading 4412. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Kahrs Int'l, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 1996 Beloit agreed to build high-speed paper-making machines for Indonesian paper companies. Two of the companies executed promissory notes in favor of Beloit reflecting a principal indebtedness of $43.8 million. The paper companies guaranteed the notes; Beloit assigned them to JPMorgan in exchange for construction financing. The machines were delivered in 1998 but did not run as specified. In 2000 the parties settled claims pertaining to the machines but preserved obligations under the notes. JPMorgan sued for nonpayment. The district court held that warranty-based claims were foreclosed by the settlement and that other defenses lacked merit; it awarded JPMorgan $53 million. After the appeal was filed, JPMorgan issued citations to discover assets. Although the companies raised an international conflict-of-law question, the district court ordered compliance with the citations. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The settlement waived implied warranty defenses and counterclaims. The fraud defense is also mostly barred; to the extent it is not, the evidence was insufficient to survive summary judgment. The court also rejected defenses that the notes lacked consideration; that the notes were issued for a “special purpose” and were not intended to be repaid; and that JPMorgan is not a holder in due course. The discovery order was not appealable. View "JPMorgan Chase & Co., N.A. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

When merchandise is sold in the U.S. at less than fair value, the Commerce Department may impose antidumping duties, 19 U.S.C. 1673e(a)(1), 1677b(a)(1), 1677a(a). Commerce generally determines individual margins for each exporter or producer, but if that is not practicable, may investigate a reasonable number of respondents. Others are assigned a separate “all-others” rate. In proceedings involving non-market economy countries, including China, Commerce presumes that exporters and producers are state-controlled, and assigns them a state-wide rate. This presumption is rebuttable; a company that demonstrates sufficient independence from state control may apply for a separate rate. Commerce concluded that the Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical was entitled to a separate rate. The company subsequently challenged the rate calculation. The Court of International Trade held that Commerce did not exceed the scope of a remand order when it recalculated the U.S. price and that the explanation given for calculation of the separate rate was not unreasonable. The Federal Circuit reversed in part and remanded to Commerce to again reconsider its approach to calculating the separate rate. “Commerce must act non-arbitrarily and must explain why its approach is a ‘reasonable method,’” in light alternatives available and with recognition that the calculation will affect only cooperating respondents. View "Changzhou Wujin Fine Chem. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

The Department of Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC). The order states that the products subject to the order are those which are “4.75 mm or more in thickness.” ASB, a Belgian producer of SSPC, requested a scope ruling to determine whether its products, which have nominal thicknesses of 4.75 mm or more but are imported into the U.S. with actual thicknesses less than 4.75 mm, are included within the scope of the order. Commerce determined that the scope of its antidumping order encompasses SSPC having a nominal thickness of 4.75 mm but an actual thickness of less than 4.75 mm. The Court of International Trade affirmed. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the ruling was contrary to the plain language of the order. View "Arcelormittal Stainless Belgium, N.V. v. United States" on Justia Law

Amkor initiated an International Trade Commission investigation, based on the importation, sale for importation, and sale within the U.S. after importation of certain encapsulated integrated circuit devices that allegedly infringed patent claims The Commission determined that the patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(2). The Federal Circuit reversed. Evidence establishing that there might have been a prior conception is not sufficient to meet the clear and convincing burden needed to invalidate a patent. View "Amkor Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law

Shell imported petroleum products, 1993-1994, upon which custom duties, taxes, and other fees were paid. During the same period, Shell exported drawback-eligible substitute finished petroleum derivatives. In 1995-1996, substitution drawback claims were filed with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Shell’s behalf. Generally, Customs provides a drawback of 99% of any duty, tax, or fee imposed under federal law upon entry or importation if the merchandise (or a commercially interchangeable substitute) is subsequently exported or destroyed under Customs supervision and not used within the U.S. before exportation or destruction, 19 U.S.C. 1313(j),(p). Drawback claims must be filed within three years of exportation. During the time of Shell’s imports, drawback eligibility of Harbor Maintenance Tax and Environmental Tax payments, which Shell now seeks, were heavily disputed. Shell was found not to have included an express request for HMT and ET in the “net claim” figure. In 1997, after the three-year period for the filing of drawback claims had expired Shell filed protests with Customs, seeking drawback as to HMT and ET payments. Customs denied Shell’s protests. The Court of International Trade found the claims time-barred. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that 1999 and 2004 statutory amendments did not change Shell’s position. View "Shell Oil Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2004 Ford owned the British car maker Jaguar. In 2004 and 2005, Ford imported Jaguar-brand cars. On the cars’ entry into the U. S., Ford deposited estimated duty payments with Customs. Ford subsequently concluded that its estimates were too high and filed reconciliation entries seeking a refund. The total refund claimed, across nine disputed entries at issue, was about $6.2 million. The general one-year time period imposed for liquidating such entries had long expired when Ford filed suit, 19 U.S.C. 1504(a). The Court of International Trade rejected the complaint’s assertion of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i), the Tariff Act’s grant of residual jurisdiction over matters concerning enforcement and administration of duty assessment. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding valid invocation of the court’s residual jurisdiction, as the importer could not have asserted jurisdiction under any of the other enumerated provisions of section 1581. Post-complaint efforts by Customs to clear the importer’s accounts did not undo such jurisdiction. View "Ford Motor Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

Avisma produces magnesium and titanium sponge in Russia. The process starts with a dehydration step. Most of the resultant raw magnesium is then processed into pure and alloyed magnesium, the subject of an antidumping order issued by Commerce in response to a petition by domestic producers. A portion of the raw magnesium is used to produce titanium sponge. After Commerce imposed a 15.77 percent duty, the Trade Court remanded the case. On remand, Commerce declined to alter the determination. The Trade Court then held that, when determining Avisma’s magnesium production costs for purposes of calculating the constructed value of Avisma’s magnesium, Commerce was required to take into account Avisma’s entire production process, which includes titanium, as well as magnesium. In its second remand determination, Commerce determined the constructed value of Avisma’s magnesium by taking into account Avisma’s entire production process, resulting in an antidumping duty of 8.51 percent. The Trade Court issued final judgment accordingly. The Federal Circuit reversed and reinstated Commerce’s earlier decision. The Trade Court erred in requiring Commerce to consider an affidavit by Avisma’s accountant that Commerce had determined was untimely. View "PSC VSMPO-Avisma Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law