Canada-based Midwest-CBK's sales to U.S. customers weren't "for export" to the U.S. and therefore don't have a "transaction value" for the assignment of import duties, the company told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Filing a reply brief on July 19, Midwest-CBK said the goods should have been "appraised via deductive value" and that its goods were deemed liquidated since CBP didn't have an adequate basis to extend the liquidation of its entries (Midwest-CBK v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1142).
The Korean government filed a brief in defense of a South Korean steel exporter and plaintiff July 12, adding its own opinion directly to a case discussing the long-standing controversy surrounding the Commerce Department’s finding of de jure specificity in the Korean steel industry’s use of Korea’s cap-and-trade emissions program (see 2406200062) (POSCO v. U.S., CIT # 24-00006).
A domestic producer of chlorine for use in residential pools argued in a July 17 motion for judgment that the Commerce Department once again bypassed a more suitable surrogate country in a review because it emphasized the comparative economic development over actual production of identical products (Bio-Lab v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 24-00024).
Antidumping and countervailing duty petitioners, led by Atlas Tube, said the Commerce Department properly used adverse facts available against exporter Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co. in three anti-circumvention inquiries for untimely submitting questionnaire responses in a "straightforward case" (Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00248).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
On appeal, the U.S. and a petitioner each defended the Court of International Trade’s acceptance of its thrice-remanded (see 2401190037) countervailing duty calculation for Russian phosphate fertilizer exporters (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-00117, -20, -21).
Mandatory antidumping duty respondent Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co., along with 25 plywood exporters, urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to uphold the Court of International Trade's decision giving Chengen and the separate rate respondents a zero percent dumping margin in the AD investigation on hardwood plywood from China (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1258).
Because no party now opposes the results of a remanded scope ruling on engines with horizontal crankshafts from China, the government asked the Court of International Trade on July 18 to sustain the ruling (Zhejiang Amerisun Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00011).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential decision July 17 sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on preserved mushrooms from the Netherlands. Judge M. Miller Baker said he will make the decision public on July 25. U.S. mushroom producer Giorgio Foods contested Commerce's pick of Germany as the third-country comparison market and its decision not to use adverse facts available against respondent Prochamp (see 2307240018) (Giorgio Foods v. U.S., CIT # 23-00133).
An importer arguing that its Chinese-origin garlic that is boiled, then frozen shouldn’t be subject to antidumping duties on fresh garlic from China filed a motion for judgment in the Court of International Trade on July 15 (Export Packers Company Limited v. U.S., CIT # 24-00061).