The Commerce Department erred by not removing countervailing duty costs from the prices used to establish export price and constructed export price in the 2021 review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada, petitioner Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations argued (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT # 23-00189).
The Commerce Department failed to comply with a Court of International Trade remand order in a countervailing duty case concerning forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany, exporter Edelstahl said in its Sept. 6 remand comments at the Court of International Trade. Edelstahl's comment contested the second remand redetermination by the Commerce Department, which continued to find that Germany's KAV program was de jure specific and could be countervailed (BGH Edelstahl Siegen v. U.S., CIT # 21-00080).
The Commerce Department's alleged unequal treatment of the parties in a scope ruling justifies judgment in favor of the importers, Elysium Tiles and Elysium Tile Florida argued in an Aug. 31 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The case concerns a scope ruling issued with respect to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tiles from China. Elysium argues that Commerce improperly met with Florida Tile, a member of the AD/CVD petitioner Coalition of Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile (Elysium Tiles v. U.S., CIT # 23-00041).
The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department’s remand redetermination of an antidumping duty investigation on OCTG from South Korea, DOJ argued. The court only ordered Commerce to reconsider a specific issue on remand, which the department did, DOJ wrote in its Sept. 6 remand comments to the Court of International Trade (Nexteel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 18-00083).
The Commerce Department reconsidered its rejection of exporter AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's proposed quality code for sour service petroleum transport on remand at the Court of International Trade. Submitting its redetermination on Sept. 7, the agency said it used the exporter's proposed quality code due to its decision in Bohler Bleche BMBH & Co. v. U.S., leading to an increase in Dillinger's dumping rate to 4.99% as part of the antidumping duty investigation on steel cut-to-length plate from Germany (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT # 17-00158).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A lawsuit from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman against her colleagues' investigation into her fitness to continue serving on the bench should be dismissed, CAFC Judges Kimberly Moore, Sharon Prost and Richard Taranto argued in a Sept. 1 motion to dismiss. The judges -- who comprise the three-judge panel carrying out the investigation on the 96-year-old Newman -- said that Newman's suit "suffers from fatal jurisdictional flaws" (The Hon. Pauline Newman v. The Hon. Kimberly A. Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Counsel for importer Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. was allowed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to appear remotely for the company's oral argument in its customs suit on plastic-dipped knit gloves. Magid Gloves brought its case to the appellate court after the Court of International Trade said the gloves belong under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6116 instead of under heading 3926 (see 2203280037). In its arguments, the importer said the case rests on the definition of "completely embedded," claiming that "if the knit fabric making up the shell of the glove is completely embedded in plastic, the gloves" would not fit under Section XI and, thus, from heading 6116 (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1793).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate Sept. 1 in a case on the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against countervailing duty respondent Jangho Group. In a ruling on the 2013 review of the CVD order on aluminum extrusions, the appellate court upheld the Court of International Trade in its ruling that Commerce properly found the Chinese government and Jangho Group failed to respond to the best of their ability on whether aluminum extrusions producers are "authorities" (see 2205100076) (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2000).