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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on June 23 upheld a jury's determination that importer Sigma Corp. is liable under the False Claims Act for lying about whether its imports were subject to antidumping duties. Judges Michelle Friedland and Mark Bennett said no errors of law were made against Sigma and that the federal district court, not the Court of International Trade, had jurisdiction in the case (Island Industries v. Sigma Corp., 9th Cir. # 22-55063).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 24 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 20 issued its mandates in a pair of appeals on three exporters' challenges to the Commerce Department's decision to deny them separate rates in the 2012-13 and 2014-15 reviews of the antidumping duty order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from China (see 2504280020). The court said the exporters' claims on whether the agency can "deem decisive an exporter's failure to establish lack of state control of management selection" without more proof of state control over export activities were precluded by the appellate court's recent holding in Pirelli Tyre v. U.S. The court then said Commerce provided sufficient evidence to back its decision to reject the separate rate applications of all three companies (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163) (China Manufacturers Alliance v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).
Antidumping duty petitioner The Coalition for Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile challenged the Commerce Department's AD investigation on ceramic tile from India, arguing that the agency erred in its collapsing and affiliation analyses regarding the two mandatory respondents. The result of the investigation was a zero percent margin for the respondents, Antiqa Minerals and Win-Tel Ceramics (The Coalition for Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile v. United States, CIT # 25-00095).
The U.S. waited too long before seeking to collect on nearly $90,000 of unpaid antidumping duties for two entries in 2017 and 2018, plus $90,000 more in penalty fees, inkjet fabric rolls importer Courtside Market said June 20 at the Court of International Trade (U.S. v. Courtside Market, CIT # 24-00233).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 23 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Honey exporters led by Ban Me Thuot Honeybee Joint Stock Company asked the Court of International Trade on June 17 to accept their amended complaint and overturn the clerical dismissal of their case challenging the 2021-23 antidumping duty review on raw honey from Vietnam (Ban Me Thuot Honeybee Joint Stock Company v. United States, CIT # 25-00085).