The Court of International Trade should affirm Commerce's remand redetermination in a countervailing duty investigation on granular polytetrafluorethylene resin from India, despite the department dropping a subsidy under protest, Commerce said in its March 16 response to remand comments (Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00120).
The Court of International Trade stayed proceedings in a customs penalty case for another three months to allow the U.S. and defendants, led by Chu-Chiang "Kevin" Ho, to "finalize resolution of the matters." Judge Timothy Reif gave the parties until June 22 to either settle the case or file a joint status report. The U.S. seeks penalties due to fraud totalling over $2.9 million from Ho, Wintis Corp., Ship Communications, Aelis Nova and Maderdove. The government said Ho knowingly misclassified headlight conversion kits resulting in a duty underpayment (U.S. v. Chu-Chiang "Kevin" Ho, CIT # 19-00102).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Steel exporter SeAH Steel Corp. will appeal two February Court of International Trade decisions upholding the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis to root out "masked" dumping, it said in two notices of appeal. The trade court had sustained the test, finding that the use of an entire population of data instead of a sample "sufficiently negates" the questions raised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the 2021 Stupp Corp. v. U.S. decision (see 2302230056). One of the cases is the Stupp proceeding itself, in which the court ruled that Commerce adequately addressed the Federal Circuit's questions (see 2302270049) (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT # 19-00086) (Stupp Corp. v. Unied States, CIT # 15-00334).
The Court of International Trade should disallow a respondent in an antidumping duty case on steel nails from Taiwan to speaki at oral arguments, plaintiff Mid Continent Steel & Wire said in a March 20 opposition motion (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., CIT # 15-00213).
The Court of International Trade's recent decision in MTD Products v. U.S., which upheld the International Trade Commission's retroactive application of antidumping and countervailing duties on small vertical shaft engines from China, is "particularly instructive" in a case brought by Sweet Harvest Foods, the ITC said in a notice of supplemental authority. In MTD, the trade court upheld an ITC critical circumstances decision "under the same legal framework that applies in the instant case," the commission said (Sweet Harvest Foods v. United States, CIT # 22-00188).
The Court of International Trade shouldn't grant a stay in an antidumping case pending the expiration of the deadline to appeal the court's recent decision in another case that deals with the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test to root out "masked" dumping, two exporters argued March 20. HiSteel Co. and Dong-A Steel Co. said the court shouldn't grant the stay because their action doesn't deal with the same issue as the recent decision in Stupp Corp. v. U.S.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Canadian company J.D. Irving will appeal a January Court of International Trade decision dismissing its challenge of the Commerce Department's cash deposit instructions to CBP after the 2019 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada for lack of jurisdiction. Per the notice of appeal, J.D. Irving will take its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the trade court's opinion, Judge Timothy Reif said that the court did not have jurisdiction under Section 1581(i) since jurisdiction would have been available under Section 1581(c) (J.D. Irving v. United States, CIT # 21-00641).
The Commerce Department's determination to use acquisition costs as a proxy for costs of production without applying adverse inferences in its antidumping duty investigation covering raw honey from India was necessary to account for the structure of the Indian honey industry, with thousands of beekeepers and middlemen, and derived from lessons learned in a previous AD proceeding involving honey, DOJ argued in a March 17 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (American Honey Producers Association v. U.S., CIT # 22-00195).