The Commerce Department unlawfully found that countervailing duty respondent The Ancientree Cabinet Co. benefited from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty review, importer Craft33 Products argued in a Jan. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Craft33 said it's "one of a number of American firms caught in the crossfire of Commerce's approach to the EBCP and the wider trade war with China" (Craft33 Products v. United States, CIT # 24-00224).
The Commerce Department announced Jan. 8 that, on remand, it was still maintaining use of partial adverse facts available for steel exporter Nippon Steel in a review of hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan. It said it wasn’t enough that the exporter’s affiliate was refusing to provide certain requested information, nor that the exporter was prevented by Japanese law from making provision of that information a contractual obligation of the affiliate (Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00533).
In a Jan. 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade, exporter Zhejiang Dingli Machinery challenged the results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Chinese-origin mobile access equipment (Zhejiang Dingli Machinery v. United States, CIT # 24-00221).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. and exporter PAO TMK agreed Jan. 8 to dismiss PAO’s case against the Commerce Department’s determination in its Russian seamless pipe countervailing duty investigation. Commerce found in the investigation that PAO received countervailable subsidies through the provision of natural gas for less-than-adequate remuneration and through loans from Russian state-owned banks. The case was stayed in 2021 following a consent motion (see 2112290005) (PAO TMK v. U.S., CIT #21-00531, -00534).
The U.S. Jan. 6 supported the Commerce Department’s final results in an Indian off-road tires countervailing duty review against attacks from petitioner Titan Tire. A mandatory respondent didn’t receive the benefit of import duty exemptions from the Indian government, it said (Titan Tire Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00233).
Responding to a motion for judgment, the U.S. stood up for the Commerce Department’s scope ruling that pencil importer School Specialty’s products weren’t substantially transformed in the Philippines and should be subject to antidumping duties on pencils from China (School Specialty v. U.S., CIT # 24-00098).
The U.S. again pushed back Jan. 6 against domestic producer Deer Park Glycine’s claim that the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over its challenge to a denied scope ruling application (see 2412050059) (Deer Park Glycine v. U.S., CIT # 24-00016).
The Commerce Department adequately calculated the boat freight surrogate value in an antidumping duty review without making an adjustment for distance, the U.S. argued. Responding to respondent Giti Tire Global Trading's motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade, the government said Commerce showed that its calculation was in line with its past practice (Giti Tire Global Trading v. United States, CIT # 24-00083).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Jan. 7 after rejecting Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving's attempt to challenge the denial of an antidumping duty cash deposit rate under Section 1581(i). The company recently petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case (see 2501020026). CAFC dismissed the case after finding its true nature to be a challenge to a former AD rate received by J.D. Irving, making jurisdiction proper under Section 1581(c) (see 2410100042). In addition, the court said relief could be sought either before a binational panel or in an AD review (J.D. Irving v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1652).