A case concerning the Commerce Department's refusal to start a successor-in-interest changed circumstances review for exporter GreenFirst Forest Products under the countervailing duty investigation on softwood lumber products from Canada has been dismissed with the agreement of all parties (GreenFirst Forest Products v. U.S., CIT # 22-00097).
The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade for a voluntary remand in a countervailing duty case to reconsider the calculation of benchmark prices for land and ocean freight. The government said its practice regarding the calculation of these figures has evolved since the present case was brought by Risen Energy Co. and JA Solar on the 2019 review of the CVD order on solar cells from China (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00231).
The Commerce Department erred when it found that wood boards used to produce downstream cabinet products were wood “moulding and millwork” products, importer Hardware Resources said in an Aug. 31 complaint to the Court of International Trade. The suit contests Commerce's Aug. 2 final scope ruling which found that imported edge-glued boards were within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wood mouldings and millwork products from China (see 2308080002) (Hardware Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00150).
An assessment of domestic interested party willingness to participate in five-year reviews of antidumping duty orders on stilbenic optical brightening agents from China and Taiwan doesn't itself constitute a "review," the International Trade Commission said in a Sept. 1 motion at the Court of International Trade. The ITC asked the court to affirm the termination of the five-year review of the AD orders at issue (Archroma U.S., Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00354).
Two claims of substitution drawback for imports of petroleum derivatives already had been deemed liquidated when CBP later "attempted" liquidation,importer Performance Additives, LLC said in an Aug. 31 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Performance Additives is seeking repayment of over $1.4 million in Section 301 duties it argues were improperly levied (Performance Additives v. U.S., CIT # 22-00044).
The Commerce Department released the results of its fourth remand redetermination in an antidumping duty investigation on steel nails from Taiwan, sticking with its use of a simple average to calculate the denominator of the Cohen’s d test coefficient. The department said it complied with the remand order by providing reasonable justification for its methodology in its test to identify "masked dumping" (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., CIT # 15-00213).
A complaint by Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) that challenged the International Trade Commission's decision not to institute a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey should be dismissed because Erdemir's claim was rendered moot when the ITC conducted a full sunset review, the ITC said in an Aug. 31 brief at the Court of International Trade (Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00350).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Metal One America moved Aug. 31 to dismiss its customs case at the Court of International Trade concerning its imports of hot-rolled high carbon wire rod tire cord made of steel. In the case, the importer said its product, classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7213.91.3011, qualifies for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs (Metal One America v. U.S., CIT # 21-00503).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 31 order dismissed importer Victaulic Company's customs case concerning its VicFlex sprinkler brackets, per the company's request. Victaulic said its brackets are properly classified as "parts" of machines for dispersing or spraying liquids under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8424.90.9080 and not subject to Section 301 duties (see 2207180024) (Victaulic v. U.S., CIT # 22-00022).