Correction: A complaint filed by the Turkish rebar exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi challenging the Commerce Department's 2021 countervailing duty review on rebar from Turkey was in Court of International Trade case number 24-00096 (see 2407010038).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container will appeal a May Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's recalculation of exporter Sahamitr's sales expenses in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel propane cylinders from Thailand (see 2405020029). The court said that Sahamitr failed to undermine Commerce's finding that the company's monthly-based calculation of its sales costs were distortive. The exporter said on July 1 that it will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. U.S., CIT # 22-00107).
The Commerce Department wrongly used data of producers of “similar,” not “identical,” products when constructing a respondent’s value in an antidumping duty review on forged steel fluid end blocks from Italy, a petitioner said June 28 (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00191).
Tire importer ZC Rubber America told the Court of International Trade on July 2 that the government and petitioner Accuride Corp. failed to defend the Commerce Department's "substantial transformation" analysis regarding steel truck wheels made in Thailand with either Chinese-origin rims or discs (Asia Wheel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00143).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The government is attempting to argue that it has the discretion to decide what antidumping and countervailing duty orders mean regardless of those orders’ plain language, pipe fitting petitioners argued July 1 (NORCA Industrial Company, LLC v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00231).
Litigants in a pair of cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit jumped on the U.S. Supreme Court's move last week to axe the principle of agency deference when interpreting ambiguous statutes (see 2406280051). In notices of supplemental authority, two importers told the appellate court that the Court of International Trade relied on the now-defunct Chevron deference standard.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 2 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: