A Turkish hot-rolled steel exporter March 18 defended its appeal over the currency that “controls” its products’ pricing against opposition by the U.S. and domestic petitioners, saying the petitioners had done their math wrong (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1158).
A petitioner replied March 18 to opposition to its appeal of a Court of International Trade decision that an importer’s plastic shelf dividers weren't covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders on raw flexible magnets from China (see 2309260049). It said that the plain text of the orders didn't exclude “functionally inflexible” magnets and that the dividers couldn't be “rigid” because they were “capable of being bent” (Magnum Magnetics Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1164).
The government is deploying a "smoke and mirrors approach" to distract the Court of International Trade from exporter Chandan Steel Limited's arguments in a case related to the 2018-19 antidumping duty review on Indian stainless steel flanges, Chandan argued March 25 (Kisaan Die Tech Private, Ltd. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00512).
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 Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices March 26 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated March 25 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judge Evan Wallach on March 25 deferred exporter Oman Fasteners' motion to dismiss an interlocutory appeal in an antidumping duty case to the three-judge merits panel assigned to the case. The appeal came from petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire from the Court of International Trade's decision to impose an injunction on the Commerce Department's AD cash deposits on Oman Fasteners' steel nail imports. Oman Fasteners moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming that since the injunction is no longer active since Commerce completed the next review of the AD order, there's no live controversy (see 2401300069). The trade court granted the injunction after finding the agency abused its discretion in setting a 154.33% AD rate on the exporter for narrowly missing a filing deadline (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
Three companies challenging the International Trade Commission's injury finding on Mexican and Chinese rail couplers responded to the ITC's and the petitioner's opposition to their motion to consolidate their cases, arguing that the "result is to sandbag Plaintiffs." Dubbing the ITC's opposition to the consolidation a "highly unusual move," the three companies -- Amsted Rail Co., Wabtec Corp. and Strato -- said that the opposition is "procedurally dubious" and "entirely meritless" (Amsted Rail Ind. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00268; Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00157; Strato v. United States, CIT # 23-00158).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices March 22-25 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Two plaintiffs said in a March 18 filing that they are voluntarily dismissing their complaints in a case regarding a Commerce Department Enforce and Protect Act covered merchandise inquiry (see 2403200072), saying the issue they raised had become simply an "academic" question (Tube Forgings of America, Inc. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00231).