Opposing the Commerce Department’s second remand redetermination regarding Spanish utility-scale wind towers (see 2406250029), a wind tower trade coalition argued July 23 that part of an investigation’s collapsed mandatory respondent is only a holding company, and so shouldn’t be allowed to participate in the review (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. U.S., CIT # 21-00449).
toSearch Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "China import").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead.
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., +CBP).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., -ruling).
Singular form: Always use the singular form when doing multi-word terms (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls").
Shortest word form: When you have different word forms in a quoted (multi-word) term, you want to only include the shortest version if it is the last part of the expression (e.g., "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
A Colombian paper shopping bag exporter said in a complaint July 29 that the Commerce Department miscalculated the exporter’s dumping margin by failing to conduct a level of trade adjustment to its home market sales (Ditar v. U.S., CIT # 24-00130).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Chinese cartridge exporter Ninestar Corp. told the Court of International Trade in a July 26 reply brief that it's not attempting to "exhaust its remedies" before the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force by requesting removal from the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Responding to the government's bid to dismiss the case, Ninestar said it's merely asking FLETF to "take a new agency action, based on a different legal standard and a different evidentiary record" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
In the wake of Loper Bright, the U.S. and two defendant-intervenors raised three different sets of arguments July 25 in defense of the Commerce Department’s interpretation of the statute governing sunset reviews. All three opposed a plaintiff softwood lumber exporter’s claim that its case had been substantially strengthened by the demise of the Chevron doctrine (Resolute FP Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00095).
The U.S. and Amcor Flexibles Singen, an aluminum foil exporter, filed a joint status report to Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif regarding 14 classification cases dating from 2015 to 2018 (Amcor Flexibles Singen v. U.S., CIT # 15-00243, et al.).
The Commerce Department improperly used an invoice date as the date of sale of goods in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete rebar from Turkey, exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret told the Court of International Trade. Filing a motion for judgment on July 23, Kaptan said Commerce should have used the contract date as the date of sale (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 24-00018).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department was right to use Brazilian, not Mexican, labor cost data when constructing a value for two Chinese exporters of stainless steel kegs, the U.S. said July 22 in response to defendant intervenors’ comments on the department’s results of a review after a third remand (New American Keg v. U.S., CIT # 20-00008).
The Commerce Department wrongly called its own decision memoranda in other, similar proceedings “new factual information” that could be, and had been, “untimely raised,” a petitioner said in a July 22 brief -- six months after that petitioner relied on them in its own administrative filings (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. U.S., CIT # 24-00039).