The Commerce Department's denial of separate rate status to Pirelli Tyre Co. during the first 10 months of the review period in an antidumping duty administrative review was improper because the importer was not yet owned by a Chinese government-associated entity during that time frame, the Court of International Trade said in a Sept. 24 order. Remanding in part and sustaining in part Commerce's second remand results in the AD duty review of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves also sustained Commerce's decision, under protest, to drop the downward adjustment for irrecoverable value-added tax to mandatory respondent Qingdao Sentury Tire Co.'s export price.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Solar panel exporter MS Solar Investments is seeking targeted discovery of documents relating to the liquidation of its solar panel exports to determine if decisions made by CBP and the Commerce Department were erroneous, MS Solar said in a Sept. 22 letter to the Court of International Trade (MS Solar Investments, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00303).
The Labor Department's decision to continue to find that a unionized group of former AT&T call center employees are not entitled to trade adjustment assistance for outsourced jobs gives a "half-baked analysis" of the situation, the workers said in a Sept. 20 filing at the Court of International Trade. The plaintiffs accused the agency of failing to ever fully grapple with contradicting evidence on the record in its remand results (Communications Workers of America Local 4123, on behalf of Former Employees of AT&T Services, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor, CIT #20-00075).
The Commerce Department cannot make a particular market situation adjustment in the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value, the Court of International Trade again ruled in a Sept. 23 opinion. Pointing to multiple CIT rulings reaching the same conclusion (see 2107210065), Judge Gary Katzmann said that since the statute in one section has language permitting a PMS adjustment but excludes it in the section on normal value adjustments, Commerce could not make the PMS adjustment. Katzmann also said that even if such an adjustment were allowed, Commerce did not provide enough evidence that a PMS existed.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Commission's final negative injury determination in its antidumping and countervailing duty investigation of fabricated structural steel from Canada, China and Mexico, in a Sept. 22 confidential opinion. Judge Claire Kelly handed down the result, and plans to publish the public opinion on Sept. 30, she said in a letter to the litigants. The parties have until Sept. 29 to review information that's not already bracketed that should be bracketed and the already-bracketed information to make sure no confidential information is released to the public (Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction, LLC v. United States, CIT #20-00090).
The International Trade Commission ignored that the domestic tire industry was profitable when it made its determination that passenger vehicle and light truck tires from South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam were harming the domestic industry, plaintiffs led by Sentury Tire (Thailand) Co. said in a Sept. 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Sentury also argued that the commission failed to properly consider the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the domestic industry (Sentury Tire (Thailand) Co. Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00439).
Despite the Department of Justice's agreement to a limited injunction against liquidation through the end of the first administrative review of the relevant antidumping duty order, Ashley Furniture still seeks an open-ended injunction is needed to avoid irreparable harm due to a potentially years-long litigation that could run beyond the end of the first review, Ashley said in a Sept. 17 reply brief at the Court of International Trade.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: