Chinese exporters led by Giti Tire Global Trading repeated Feb. 17 their claim that the Commerce Department should have taken distance into account when constructing boat freight costs in an antidumping duty review (see 2411050046), saying the government was misinterpreting the financial information provided by a surrogate (Giti Tire Global Trading v. U.S., CIT #24-00083).
The Commerce Department continued to find on remand at the Court of International Trade that respondent Louis Dreyfus Co. Sucos S.A. and an unnamed supplier, dubbed "Supplier A," are not affiliated, nor are they partners. The agency said it's important to "distinguish 'exclusivity' from 'reliance'" in conducting affiliation analyses, noting that an exclusive relationship with a supplier doesn't mean a party isn't "perfectly capable of acting independently if the exclusive relationship is no longer in its interests" (Ventura Coastal v. United States, CIT # 23-00009).
The Commerce Department's finding that the Vietnamese traded-goods sector was the "predominant user" of the alleged undervaluation of the Vietnamese dong is not in line with the "statutory requirements," exporter Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co. argued in a Feb. 14 brief at the Court of International Trade (Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00397).
An importer of 3D pen kits again said Feb. 14 that the U.S. hadn’t met the procedural requirements to shield unredacted internal CBP communication under the deliberative process privilege (Quantified Operations Limited v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00178).
The U.S. said Feb. 7 that importer Mitsubishi’s catalyst blocks were actually filters, despite the importer’s arguments otherwise, and thus was properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8421 and assessed Section 301 tariffs (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. United States, CIT # 21-00573).
The Government of India and exporter Balkrishna Industries replied to petitioner Titan Tire Corp.'s arguments against the Commerce Department's finding that Balkrishna didn't use or benefit from India's Advanced Authorization Scheme in the 2021 countervailing duty review on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from India. The Indian government said neither Commerce nor the petitioner had reason to doubt the fact that Balkrishna hadn't benefited from the program, while Balkrishna argued that the Indian government properly verified the information at issue (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00233).
The Department of Defense reversed its designation of exporter Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment as a “Chinese military company,” the exporter and the government said Feb. 6 in a motion for stipulated judgment (Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment Inc. China v. United States, D. D.C. # 24-2357).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 13 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty case after ruling that the Commerce Department must establish a "particularly strong need to deter noncompliance" when setting adverse facts available rates that drastically differ from accuracy margins (see 2501070084). The appellate court rejected a 154.33% AD rate for steel nail exporter Oman Fasteners, which was set after the company missed a filing deadline by 16 minutes. The appellate court said Commerce should only look to impose massive AFA rates based on a record of unreasonable negligence or international misconduct (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
The Commerce Department adequately determined an exporter’s single sale during a new shipper review’s period of review was bona fide, the U.S. said Feb. 12 (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 24-00126).