The Commerce Department failed to follow a Court of International Trade directive in its remand results concerning Yama Ribbons and Bows' alleged receipt of benefits from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, said Yama in its March 17 response brief (Yama Ribbons and Bows v. U.S., CIT # 20-00059). Yama asked the court to instruct Commerce to apply an appropriate rate for the EBCP not based on adverse facts.
GoPro Camera housings are properly classified as cases under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 4202 rather than parts, the government continued to argue during March 15 oral arguments at the Court of International Trade. The arguments were meant to address GoPro's September motion for judgment (see 2208080041) and the government's response (see 2212140060).
The Commerce Department erred when it used adverse facts available against Korean exporter SeAH Steel Corp.'s alleged benefits under the Export-Import Bank of Korea's (KEXIM's) Performance Guarantee program, SeAH argued in a May 17 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Commerce illegally used adverse facts available in assigning SeAH a 1.33% CVD rate when it found that a 2019 KEXIM guarantee amounted to "untimely new factual information" (SeAH Steel Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00338).
Importer Diamond Tools Technology did not make a "material and false statement" and so did not evade the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on diamond sawblades from China via Thailand, CBP said in remand results filed under protest with the Court of International Trade. CBP said it made its finding to bring the proceeding in line with the trade court's remand order, which said that DTT's "failure to declare" its pre-Dec. 1, 2017, imports as subject to the AD order was not a material and false statement under the Enforce and Protect Act (Diamond Tools Tech. v. Unied States, CIT # 20-00060).
The Commerce Department failed to correctly apply quarterly cost methodology in an antidumping duty review of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length (CTL) plate from Italy, exporter Officine Tecnosider said in a March 17 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Officine Tecnosider v. U.S., CIT # 23-00001).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Shamrock Building Materials will appeal a Court of International Trade decision upholding CBP's classification of the company's steel conduit tubing imports from Mexico as steel tubing and not insulated fittings, according to a notice of appeal. Shamrock will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The trade court ruled that the "uncontested facts" show the tubing is not insulated and therefore subject to 25% Section 232 steel tariffs (see 2303140035) (Shamrock Building Materials v. U.S., CIT # 20-00074).
After a fifth remand order, the Commerce Department assigned a zero percent all-others dumping margin in a less-than-fair-value investigation onf certain hardwood plywood products from China, according to remand results released March 16 (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co., Ltd., et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 18-00002).
The Commerce Department accepted ministerial errors originally rejected as untimely in an antidumping duty proceeding on remand at the Court of International Trade, raising the dumping rates for the two respondents should the remand results be sustained. Commerce corrected errors in respondent Prolamsa's currency conversion and respondent Maquilacero's quarterly cost methodology in the 2018-19 administrative review of the AD order on heavy walled rectangular welded steel pipes and tubes from Mexico, causing their AD rates to rise from zero percent to 2.11% for Prolamsa and to 3.48% for Maquilacero (Nucor Tubular Products v. United States, CIT # 21-00543).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: