The Commerce Department illegally assigned an adverse facts available rate to mandatory respondent East Sea Seafoods Joint Stock Company in an antidumping duty review since the company stopped participating in the review, exporter Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company said in its April 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Seeing as Green Farms' separate rate was found via a simple average of the AFA rate and the other respondent's "zero" rate, this separate rate should also be found to be illegally based on AFA as it does not accurately reflect Green Farms' dumping level, the brief said (Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company v. United States, CIT #22-00092).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Mixes of frozen fruits should be classified as food preparations of heading 2106, rather than in the heading in Chapter 8 for fruit deemed to impart the mixture's essential character, an importer said in a motion for summary judgment filed with the Court of International Trade April 18 (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00131).
The Commerce Department reversed course on 45 Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion bids, granting the requests on remand at the Court of International Trade. Submitting the results of its voluntary remand request in an April 18 submission, Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security granted importer Mirror Metals' exclusion requests, finding that the bids should be granted after looking at whether the relevant steel article could be made at a sufficient level in the U.S. (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT #21-00144).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department properly decided not to individually investigate Siemens Energy's Spanish subsidiary Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy (SGRE) in an antidumping duty investigation, DOJ and AD petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition argued in two reply briefs at the Court of International Trade. DOJ said that the law is silent over how Commerce must proceed when all the initially picked respondents withdraw from the investigation, while the WTTC argued that it's not uncommon for Commerce to replace a mandatory respondent late in an investigation (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. United States, CIT #21-00449).
Importers do not need to file protests as a prerequisite for gaining refunds on excluded Section 301 duties, Environment One Corporation said in a complaint filed April 15 with the Court of International Trade. The complaint asks the court to order refunds of Section 301 duties on entries that were "ordered retroactively excluded" from the China 301 duties and to declare the government's requirement that importers seek refunds via protest to be in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Protest Statute itself.
The Commerce Department reasonably found that exporter Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co.'s tires did not qualify for a scope exclusion for light truck spare tires despite the petitioner agreeing to include specific exclusion language for Cheng Shin's tires, DOJ said in an April 13 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The exclusion requires that the tires be designed and marketed exclusively as temporary use spare tires for light trucks, and enough evidence sits on the record showing that this wasn't the case for Cheng Shin, the brief said (Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00398).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 14 granted a bid from plaintiffs-appellants Deacero and Deacero USA to stay the briefing schedule in an antidumping duty challenge, pending the results of a related matter. Both cases concern whether the Commerce Department can deduct Section 232 duties from an antidumping duty respondent's U.S. price in the dumping margin calculations (Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1486).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: