Exporters Maquilacero and Tecnicas de Fluidos on Aug. 13 opened a five-count case against the 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico. The companies challenged the Commerce Department's findings that products made by Tecnicas from light-walled rectangular tubing are within the scope of the order and the agency's decision to collapse Maquilacero and Tecnicas (Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States, CIT # 25-00176).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 15 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Exporters Fine Furniture (Shanghai) and Double F Limited supported the Commerce Department's remand results in their case against the 2018 countervailing duty administrative review on multilayered wood flooring from China (Evolutions Flooring v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00591).
Exporters led by International Greenhouse Produce and Asociacion Mexicana de Horticultura Protegida on Aug. 13 dropped their lawsuits involving a 2019 agreement suspending the antidumping duty order on fresh tomatoes from Mexico. The exporters dropped their cases following the Commerce Department's announcement in April that it withdrew from the agreement (see 2504150057) (International Greenhouse Produce v. U.S., CIT # 23-00093) (Asociacion Mexicana de Horticultura Protegida v. U.S., CIT # 20-00042).
CBP improperly interpreted the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from China when it found that 10 importers evaded the orders, importer LE Commodities argued in an Aug. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade. During the evasion proceeding, CBP said that the China-origin hollow steel billets used by Thai manufacturer Petroleum Equipment (Thailand) Co. to make the subject OCTG were "unfinished OCTG" subject to the orders (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT # 25-00181).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 14 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Chinese metal locker exporter Hangzhou Evernew Machinery & Equipment brought an Aug. 13 complaint to the trade court contesting the adverse facts available rate it received in a countervailing duty review for providing inconsistent financial statements (Hangzhou Evernew Machinery & Equipment Company v. United States, CIT # 25-00151).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 13 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 11 upheld the Commerce Department's 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China in a confidential decision. Judge Mark Barnett gave the parties until Aug. 18 to review the confidential information in the decision. In the case, exporter Yingli Energy argued that the trade court should strike down the Commerce Department's ordinary presumption that exporters in non-market economies are under foreign government control, urging the court to undertake a Loper Bright analysis of the AD statute (see 2506050001) (Yingli Energy (China) Co. v. U.S, CIT # 24-00131).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 12 sent back the Commerce Department's 2021 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea in a confidential decision. Judge Claire Kelly gave the parties until Aug. 18 to review the confidential information in the decision. The suit was brought by exporter Hyundai Steel to contest Commerce's specificity finding regarding the provision of subsidized electricity (see 2505270004). Kelly previously remanded the review after finding that the agency didn't provide a "rational basis" for its de facto specificity finding (see 2412170041). Commerce initially said the Korean steel industry was one of four apparently unrelated industries out of 10 that, together, were the four biggest users of the off-peak electricity program. On remand, the agency switched its grouping to only three industries (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S, CIT # 23-00211).