United States Court of International Trade

Default Judgment Granted in Penalty Case

In United States v. Deladiep, Inc., Court No. 16-241, Slip Op. 17-108 (August 23, 2017), the United States (“Plaintiff” or “Government”) brought this action against Deladiep, Inc. (“Deladiep”) and John Delatorre (“Mr. Delatorre”) (collectively, “defendants”) to recover unpaid duties and a civil penalty under Section 592 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. §
1592. Because defendants have failed to plead or otherwise defend themselves in this action, the Government requested that the Court enter a default judgment against defendants in the amount of $32,931.53 for unpaid customs duties, plus prejudgment interest, and $87,740.60 as a civil penalty for negligent violations of 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a). Plaintiffs made two entries of flexible magnet sheets representing that they were not subject to antidumping and countervailing duties when they indeed were. Raw Flexible Magnets from the People’s Republic of China, 73 Fed. Reg. 53,847 (Dep’t Commerce Sept. 17, 2008) (antidumping duty order) (“AD Order”); Raw Flexible Magnets from the People’s Republic of China, 73 Fed. Reg. 53,849 (Dep’t Commerce Sept. 17, 2008) (countervailing duty order) (“CVD Order”). The scope of both orders covers “certain flexible magnets regardless of shape, color, or packaging.” AD Order, 73 Fed. Reg. at 53,847; CVD Order, 73 Fed. Reg. at 53,850. Magnets subject to these orders imported from exporters that have not been assigned an individual rate are subject to an antidumping duty rate of 185.28 percent and a countervailing duty rate of 109.95 percent. Customs issued notices of action that the AD and CVD rates applied but Deladiep only responded that the merchandise was sold to law enforcement entities and did not contest the action demanding AD and CVD. 

Moreover, Deladiep did not pay the assessed AD and CVD duties. Because defendant has not argued as to why the imported magnets were out of scope of the orders, and because defendant has not responded to the complaint the Court issued default
judgment in favor of plaintiff for $32,931.53 for duties plus pre-judgment interest and $17,548.12 for the civil penalty.

Sustained Remand Results on Ball Bearings and Parts

In BMW North America LLC v. United States, Court No. 15-52, Slip Op. 17-109 (August 23, 2017), BMW of North America LLC (“BMW”) challenged the final determination in the 2010-2011 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from the United Kingdom. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof, From Japan and the
United Kingdom, 80 Fed. Reg. 4,248 (Dep’t Commerce Jan. 27, 2015) (final results for administrative review 2010–2011), as amended. In an earlier decision, the Court remanded Commerce’s decision to issue a 254.25 percent rate to BMW. On remand, Commerce assigned a 126.44 percent margin under its statutory obligations, and the Court found this decision to be supported by substantial evidence. For this reason, the Court sustained the remand results.

Commerce Determination on Pasta Remanded

In La Molisana S.p.A. v. United States, Court No. 16-47, Slip Op.17-111 (August 23, 2107), the plaintiff, La Molisana S.p.A., challenges two determinations from the eighteenth (2013-2014) antidumping duty administrative review of certain dry pasta from
Italy1: (1) whether the U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (“Commerce” or “Department”) erred in requiring La Molisana’s pasta sales product shapes to be reported without variance from the proceeding’s pasta
shape classification list; and whether Commerce failed to provide meaningful opportunity for addressing the agency’s differential pricing analysis.  The Court remanded Commerce’s decision in requiring plaintiff’s sales product shapes to be reported without variance, where the questionnaire itself contemplates revisions and the record shows that the production of various cuts of pasta should be re-classified due to the similarity in line speeds as exemplar cuts. Moreover, defendant voluntarily requested a remand in regards to Commerce’s differential price analysis.

Commerce Decision Sustained in Multilayered Wood Flooring from China Case

In Linyi Bonn Flooring Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 15-227, Slip Op. 17-113 (August 25, 2017), the Court sustained Commerce’s remand decision where it was satisfied that Commerce complied with the Court’s previous Order. Before the court was the decision (the “Remand Redetermination”) the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or the “Department”) issued in response to the court’s order in Linyi Bonn Flooring Mfg. Co. v. United States, 41 C.I.T. __, 222 F. Supp. 3d 1274 (2017) (“Linyi Bonn”). Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order (June 19, 2017), ECF No. 53 (“Remand Redeterm.”). The Court stated, “The court concludes that the court’s order was satisfied by the Department’s method of allowing Linyi Bonn the opportunity to demonstrate for the record that it had no shipments of subject merchandise during the period of June 1 through November 30, 2013. Accordingly, the court sustains the Department’s ultimate determination that “Linyi Bonn had no shipments that are subject to the second administrative review.” Slip Op, pg. 6.