Exporter China Custom Manufacturing will file a motion for a rehearing and seek en banc review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision finding the company's solar panel mounts do not qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, George Tuttle, counsel for CCM, told Trade Law Daily (China Custom Manufacturing Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1345).
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
The Court of International Trade on March 14 granted defendant-intervenor Endura Products' bid to withdraw from an Enforce and Protect Act case on whether Columbia Aluminum Products evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. Endura bowed out of the proceeding after it fell short on its request for a stay in the action pending the resolution of a scope proceeding also at the trade court (see 2302220027). The company said it no longer is interested in the appeal (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00185).
DOJ has asked the Court of International Trade permission to add AB MA Distribution Corporation as a defendant alongside Zhe "John" Liu and GL Paper Distribution in an amended complaint in a penalty case at the Court of International Trade. AB MA is allegedly a shell company through which Liu continued an illegal transshipment scheme to import Chinese-origin wire hangers through Malaysia, India and Thailand in order to evade antidumping and countervailing duties (see 2302070047) (United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).
The Commerce Department made no corrections to the final results of a 2020-2021 administrative review of an antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate resin from Oman after considering a ministerial error allegation by plaintiff Octal, DOJ told the Court of International Trade in a March 13 motion. DOJ had asked the Court to allow the Commerce Department to consider the allegation and, if necessary, to amend its final results. Commerce found that Octal untimely filed its allegation (Octal, et al. v. United States, CIT # 22-00352).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued two mandates for two recent opinions, one that upheld the Commerce Department's rejection of an untimely filing in an antidumping duty case and another that revoked a countervailing duty order (Trinity Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1329) (PT. Kenertec Power System v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1408).
The Commerce Department is required by its own policies to use the country with the best data as the surrogate country in antidumping duty proceedings, the Catfish Farmers of America and other plaintiffs said in a March 10 reply brief. Although Commerce argued the AD laws didn't require it to look into whether Indonesia offered "superior" data for the 2019-20 review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, the Catfish Farmers pointed to Import Administration Policy Bulletin 04.1, which says if more than one country meets the statutory requirements for surrogates, that Commerce "will rely on values from the country that provides the highest quality data" (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 22-00125).
The Commerce Department should not have granted an non-cooperative Vietnamese frozen fish exporter a separate antidumping rate during an AD review,Green Farms Seafood argued in its March 10 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Green Farms Seafood v. U.S., CIT # 22-00092). Commerce's subsequent averaging of the adverse facts available separate rate with other rates in the review to set a rate for the non-individually investigated companies resulted in Green Farms getting a rate not reflective of economic reality, Green Farms said.
The International Trade Commission correctly used critical circumstances in its investigation of raw honey from Vietnam, the ITC said in its March 10 response brief at the Court of International Trade. The commission asked the court to affirm its determination and to deny a December motion for judgment by the four plaintiffs, Honey Solutions, Sunland Trading, Export Packers Co. and Sweet Harvest Foods (Sweet Harvest Foods, et al. v. United States, CIT # 22-00188).