The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 26 order gave defendant-appellee Mid Continent Steel & Wire until Feb. 22 to file a reply brief over the use of total adverse facts available rates for two non-cooperative respondents. The appellee said it needed the extra time due to "a significant volume of time-sensitive work arising from other cases being handled by" Mid Continent's counsel (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2128).
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 25 order dismissed an antidumping duty case brought by exporter Echjay Forgings after the company moved to toss the action. The case concerned the 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India. Echjay had argued that the Commerce Department erred by not including the company in the all-others rate (see 2207080064). Echjay is also making identical challenges at CIT over the first administrative review of the order and at Commerce over the third administrative review (Echjay Forgings v. United States, CIT #22-00172).
Industrial shredders should be classified as "Other machines and mechanical appliances... other," dutiable at 2.5% rather than as duty-free machines for "mixing, kneading, crushing, grinding, screening, sifting, homogenizing, emulsifying or stirring,” argued the DOJ in a Jan. 25 cross-motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Vecoplan v. United States # 20-00126).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The International Trade Commission's decision not to cumulate imports from Brazil with imports from Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, Turkey and the U.K. in a hot-rolled steel injury proceeding violated the law, U.S. steel maker Cleveland-Cliffs argued in a Jan. 25 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The ITC focused on the likely volume of the Brazilian imports in the cumulation analysis, failing to support the decision with substantial evidence and failing to address its departure from its past practice (Cleveland-Cliffs v. United States, CIT #22-00355).
The Commerce Department arbitrarily and capriciously found that exporter Officine Tecnosider failed to challenge the agency's decision to reject quarterly cost methodology in an antidumping review, the exporter argued in a Jan. 25 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce further violated the law by rejecting quarterly cost methodology based on its review of the three largest inputs' quarterly average prices and by failing to calculate an accurate dumping margin, the brief said (Officine Tecnosider v. United States, CIT # 23-00001).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should uphold CBP's finding that importers Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co. evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel grating from China, defendant-intervenor Hog Slat argued in a Jan. 20 reply brief at CIT. The trade court must reject the plaintiff's arguments that their tribar flooring imports are not under the scope of the orders since CBP's covered merchandise finding "reflected the typical analysis undertaken by Commerce with respect to questions of scope which, although not required of CBP, demonstrates the analytical reasonableness of CBP's approach," the brief said (Ikadan System USA v. United States, CIT #21-00592).
Counterweights for mini excavators should be subject to Section 301 tariffs because they qualify as parts for "backhoes," the government argued in a Jan. 23 brief at the Court of International Trade. DOJ asked the court to deny plaintiff Norca Engineered Products' Nov. 3 motion for summary judgment and to find that the counterweights are backhoe parts and therefore not subject to a Section 301 exclusion (Norca Engineered Products v. U.S., CIT #21-00305).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential Jan. 24 opinion upheld CBP's evasion finding in an Enforce and Protect Act case brought by Leco Supply. In a letter accompanying the decision, Judge Mark Barnett gave the parties until Jan. 31 to review the confidential information in the opinion (Leco Supply v. United States, CIT # 21-00136).