The Commerce Department ignored evidence against an objector's claim that it could provide domestic tin mill products to make up the shortfall when it denied Section 232 exclusion requests for tin mill products by Seneca Foods, the company continued to argue during July 11 oral arguments at the Court of International Trade (Seneca Foods Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00243).
Kazakh exporter Tau-Ken Temir filed a corrected version of its opening brief in a countervailing duty case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after the court rejected the company's efforts to add new claims to its originally filed brief (see 2306300060). The government and petitioners Globe Specialty Metals and Mississippi Silicon fought against the effort to add new claims to the brief, claiming that it was an attempt to shoehorn arguments on the agency's new regulations concerning untimely submitted files. The new brief filed by TKT makes corrections requested by the clerk of the court in a case on the CVD investigation on silicon metal from Kazakhstan in which the Commerce Department used adverse facts available due to a missed filing deadline (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
The Court of International Trade erred by sustaining the Commerce Department’s conclusions regarding cost smoothing, cost reconciliation, and differential pricing in the antidumping duty investigation on wind towers from Canada, respondent Marmem said in a July 10 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Marmen v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 2023-1877).
The Commerce Department legally weight-averaged or "smoothed" antidumping duty respondent Dongkuk S&C Co.'s "disparate" steel plate costs in the AD investigation on utility scale wind towers from South Korea, the government and petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition argued in a pair of reply briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Dongkuk S&C Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1419).
The Court of International Trade granted importer World Wide Packaging's bid to dismiss its case on the classification of plastic tubes and caps from China due to a settlement. The case, which challenges CBP's classification of the goods based on the post-importation sale to its downstream U.S. customers, was stayed so the parties could discuss whether the appeal could be subject to a stipulated judgment (see 2108090034) (World Wide Packaging, LLC v. United States, CIT # 21-00189).
The Court of International Trade in a July 12 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision on voluntary remand to slash from 82.05% to 41.03% the antidumping duty rate for the separate rate respondents in the 2016-17 review on diamond sawblades from China. The case had been stayed pending the resolution of a case on the previous administrative review, Bosun Tools Co. v. U.S., in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Commerce's move to similarly cut the separate rate.
CBP’s determination that the entries of softwood lumber imported by Fraserview Remanufacturing had been deemed liquidated and the agency's posting of liquidation notices can't be challenged at the Court of International Trade because a protest contesting that determination is currently being adjudicated by CBP, DOJ said in a July 11 dismissal motion (Fraserview Remanufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 23-00063).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should affirm Commerce Department margin calculations for Mexican exporters Simec, Acerero and Sidertul in the 2019-20 antidumping duty administrative review on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico, the Rebar Trade Action Coalition (RTAC) said in its July 10 motion at the Court of International Trade (Grupo Simec v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00202).
The Commerce Department was not required to credit countervailing duty respondent Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum's claims of non-use of the Export Buyer’s Credit Program (EBCP) and correctly applied adverse facts available, DOJ said in a July 10 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The brief came in reply to Alcha's April motion for judgment, in which it contested the agency's methodology during the administrative review of a countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from China (see 2304170048) (Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00290).