The Commerce Department erred in finding that exporter Asia Wheel Co.'s trailer wheels are within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel wheels 12 to 16.5 inches in diameter from China, the company said in a June 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Asia Wheel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00096).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate granting exporter Deacero S.A.P.I.'s move to dismiss its appeal challenging the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on rebar products from Mexico. Both the U.S. and petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition consented to the motion. Deacero launched the suit to challenge the Commerce Department's treatment of Section 232 duties paid by Deacero as U.S. import duties, deducting them from the company's U.S. price in the dumping calculation (Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1486).
The Court of International Trade improperly upheld CBP's incorrect classification of conduit tubing imported from Mexico as steel tubing instead of insulated fittings, Shamrock Building Materials said in its June 5 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Shamrock Building Materials v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1648)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should deny Oman Fasteners' bid to dismiss Mid Continent's appeal of a Court of International Trade opinion which consolidated a motion for an injunction on antidumping duty cash deposits with a motion for judgment, saying the motion to dismiss is a “revisionist version of the record and applicable statutes, regulations, and judicial precedent” and isn't accurate, Mid Continent said in a reply brief June 6 (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's decision to use Afghanistan as a comparison market for India in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined paper products from India was flawed and resulted in skewed margins for respondent Cellpage and the non-selected respondents, a group of U.S. manufacturers said in a June 5 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Prices in Afghanistan were not representative and should not have been the basis for normal value, Association of American School Paper Suppliers (AASPS) argued as it asked the court to remand the results back to Commerce (Association of American School Paper Suppliers v. U.S., CIT # 23-00102).
The Court of International Trade granted a request by antidumping respondent Ellwood City Forge to reply to remand comments in an antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany. CIT Judge Stephen Vaden granted the May 15 request over objections by both DOJ and intervenor Edelstahl Siegen (Ellwood City Forge v. U.S., CIT # 21-00077).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in two cases -- one on a Chinese exporter's failure to rebut the presumption of government control in an antidumping case and the other on the Commerce Department's anti-circumvention inquiry against exporter Al Ghurair Iron & Steel. In the AD case, the appellate court said respondent Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Co. failed to rebut the presumption of Chinese government control in the AD administrative review on tapered roller bearings from China since its majority shareholder is a state-owned labor union (see 2304140025). In the anti-circumvention case, the Federal Circuit said Commerce properly supported its decision that AGIS' goods from the United Arab Emirates circumvented AD/CVD on corrosion-resistant steel products from China by using evidence of patterns of trade, level of investment, nature of the production process in the UAE and the extent of production factilities (see 2304120037) (Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-2257 )(Al Ghurair Iron & Steel v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1199).
The U.S. moved to swap its lead counsel in a countervailing duty case after Bret Vallacher, former head attorney in the suit on the CVD investigation on silicon metal from Kazakhstan, left DOJ. The U.S. said Vallacher "is no longer employed by" the department but was not able to withdraw as principal counsel before leaving. Brendan Jordan was put forward by the government as the next lead counsel. Both appellants, led by Tau-Ken Temir, and defendant-appellees, led by Globe Specialty Metals, consented to the swap (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).