In response to attacks from multiple sides, the U.S. asked the Court of International Trade on Aug. 7 to remand the results of its first antidumping duty review on Indonesian mattresses so that it could look into a calculation error alleged by exporters (PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia v. U.S., CIT # 24-00001).
A domestic glycine producer brought its case to the Court of International Trade to make up for omissions and errors it made in a scope ruling application, the U.S. claimed Aug. 9. It asked the court to reject the producer’s motion for judgment because it had failed to exhaust its arguments during the administrative process (Deer Park Glycine, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00238).
Exporters Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. and C&U Americas argued in an Aug. 13 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department's differential pricing analysis is not allowed by the statute in antidumping reviews and is only permissible for AD investigations (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00025).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 13 sustained the Commerce Department's 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on narrow woven ribbons from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu upheld Commerce's decision on remand to drop the subsidy rate pertaining to exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The judge also said the agency properly countervailed the Chinese government's provision of synthetic yarn and caustic soda, two ribbon inputs, for less than adequate remuneration. The court sustained Commerce's use of adverse facts available related to these two programs due to the Chinese government's failure to respond to the best of its ability.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 13 on AD/CVD proceedings:
T-Type Spare Tires Not for Regular Use on Passenger Cars or Light Trucks Not Subject to Taiwanese AD
Certain T-type spare tires imported by Cheng Shin Rubber USA from Taiwan are not covered by an antidumping duty order on Taiwanese light truck tires, the Commerce Department said in an Aug. 5 scope ruling.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Countervailing duty petitioner The Mosaic Co. and respondent OCP each moved the Court of International Trade for judgment last week in a combined suit on the first review of the CVD order on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco (The Mosaic Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00246).
An exporter and a petitioner each filed an opposition to the Commerce Department’s final results upon remand for an antidumping duty review on Indian-origin steel pipe, in which the department provided a strong defense of adverse facts available as a tool to combat the problem of noncooperative unaffiliated suppliers (see 2407100037) (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT # 21-00169).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 12 ordered exporter Risen Energy Co. to appear at oral argument in an antidumping duty case after the company waived its right to appear (see 2408020019). Risen originally brought suit to contest the 2017-18 AD review on solar cells from China, arguing that the Commerce Department failed to use the best information when setting surrogate values for the company's backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs (see 2305170049). The per curiam order from the court told Risen to appear at oral argument after the U.S. said it would appear (see 2408070003) (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).