Correction: In two complaints filed Oct. 10, petitioner The American Personal Transportation Vehicle Manufacturers Coalition challenged the antidumping duty investigation on Chinese-origin golf carts, saying the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission should both have found critical circumstances with regard to an exporter (The American Personal Transportation Vehicle Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, CIT # 25-00203, 25-00204).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Tapered roller bearing exporter Shanghai Tainai Bearing and importer C&U Americas filed a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 14, arguing, among other things, that the U.S. failed to adequately defend the Commerce Department's selection of Romanian firm Timken Romania as part of the surrogate value calculations. Tainai added that Commerce illegally decided to deduct the cost of Section 301 duties from the company's U.S. price in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1405).
Agreeing that the International Trade Commission isn’t required to determine that imports “surged” prior to the publication of antidumping or countervailing duty orders to find critical circumstances, a domestic pea protein producer supported Oct. 8 the ITC’s own explanation of the relevant standard (see 2509290056) (NURA USA v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00182).
Exporter Kangdi Electric Vehicle (Hainan) and its affiliated importer Kandi America filed a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 14 to contest the International Trade Commission's and Commerce Department's affirmative finding of critical circumstances regarding Chinese low speed personal transportation vehicles from China (Kangdi Electric Vehicle (Hainan) v. United States, CIT #'s 25-00201, -00202).
The other mandatory respondent in the Commerce Department’s antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations on Chinese-origin golf carts, Xiamen Dalle, challenged the critical circumstances finding Commerce reached regarding it in the CVD investigation in an Oct. 14 complaint. It said its prior attorney had failed to submit certain data, then tried to cover up their mistake (Xiamen Dalle New Energy Automobile Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00205).
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 International Trade Commission doesn't have to identify whether a surge of imports subject to antidumping duties has an adverse impact on the time period after which the final AD order is issued to make a critical circumstances finding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Oct. 15. Judges Richard Taranto, Alan Lourie and Tiffany Cunningham said the relevant statutory provision, 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)(4)(A)(i) "does not demand a determination focused on the time after the antidumping duty order issues."
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The International Trade Commission failed to adequately consider "key market data" when reaching an affirmative critical circumstances determination in the injury proceeding on low speed personal transportation vehicles from China, importer Vexas, doing business as Atlas, said in an Oct. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Vexas v. United States, CIT # 25-00206).