Antidumping duty petitioners Bio-Lab, Innovative Water Care and Occidental Chemical Corp. took to the Court of International Trade on March 1 to contest the Commerce Department's surrogate country pick in the 2021-22 antidumping duty review on chlorinated isocyanurates from China (Bio-Lab v. United States, CIT # 24-00024).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 29 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2019 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. On remand, Commerce reversed its decision to apply subsidy rates to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP) and a Chinese tax program for the CVD rate for exporters Risen Energy Co. and JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co.
The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on superabsorbent polymers from South Korea in a March 1 confidential opinion. Petitioner Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers' motion for judgment had argued against Commerce's use of alternative characteristics of superabsorbent polymers supplied by respondent LG Chem to set control numbers (see 2307170007). The petitioner said the use of LG Chem's alternative characteristics is contrary to the agency's established practice (The Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers v. U.S., CIT # 23-00010).
The Court of International Trade on March 1 rejected importer Diamond Tools Technology's request for attorney fees in its suit challenging CBP's finding that the company evaded the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from China. Judge Timothy Reif said that since the case presented two issues of "first impression," the government's position was "substantially justified."
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices March 1 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Even if adverse facts available were warranted for the calculation of an exporter’s rate, that rate should be set only to deter non-cooperation, not to destroy a company entirely, the exporter said Feb. 28 at the Court of International Trade (Pastificio Gentile S.r.l. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00037).
The U.S. and importer Siffron filed a pair of briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit defending the Commerce Department's finding that Siffron's shelf dividers are outside the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on flexible magnets from China (Magnum Magnetics Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1164).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Feb. 29 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The 1930 Tariff Act doesn't demand the Commerce Department conduct individual reviews for exporters in sunset reviews, the government said Feb. 26 in a filing with the Court of International Trade (Resolute FP Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00095).