The senators from Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana asked the commerce secretary to reverse a preliminary decision to reduce the "Vietnam-wide" antidumping rate for Vietnamese catfish exporters that haven't been assigned their own rate to 14 cents per kilogram, from a previous $2.39/kg rate.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department repeatedly relied on an analysis in several administrative reviews that the courts had already struck down, an exporter of Indian carbon steel welded pipe said in a Jan.19 brief responding to comments made by DOJ and domestic petitioners regarding its own motion for summary judgment (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT # 21-00169).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 23 sustained the Commerce Department's finding that oil piping from Brunei and the Philippines circumvented the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on oil country tubular goods from China. Judge M. Miller Baker relied on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Al Ghurair Iron & Steel v. U.S. to reject claims from exporters HLDS (B) Steel and HLD Clark Steel Pipe against Commerce's comparison of their production of oil pipe in Brunei and the Philippines to the production of hot-rolled steel, an oil piping input, in China. The Federal Circuit already found that Commerce can make the comparison because the agency indicated what part of the total value of the goods subject to the inquiries is accounted for by the last step of processing and found that the level of investment is much greater for the production of hot-rolled steel than for oil piping, Baker noted.
The U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit has consistently permitted the Commerce Department's use of its non-market economy policy in antidumping cases, the U.S. told the appellate court in a Jan. 18 opening brief. Appealing a Court of International Trade decision calling into question the NME policy, the government argued that "Congress has afforded Commerce wide latitude in how it enforces and implements" the AD statute and "this Court has consistently sustained Commerce's exercise of this discretion, in the absence of unambiguous statutory direction" (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Jan. 22 on AD/CVD proceedings:
An antidumping and countervailing duty petitioner on Jan. 19 filed its opening brief in an appeal of the Court of International Trade’s September ruling that the Commerce Department correctly excluded an importer’s shelf dividers from AD/CVD orders on flexible magnets from China (Magnum Magnetics Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1164).
CBP illegally liquidated an importer’s entries before litigation over the entries’ antidumping duty rate had finished, that importer alleged in the Court of International Trade (Acquisition 362 dba Strategic Import Supply vs. U.S., CIT 24-00011).
CBP released a remand determination Jan. 18 reaffirming that three importers -- Newtrend USA, Starille and Nutrawave -- attempted to evade antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese glycine (Newtrend USA v. U.S., CIT # 22-00347).
Target Corp. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the U.S. failed to distinguish the court's opinion in Cemex v. U.S. from Target's case, in which the retail giant is contesting a court-ordered reliquidation of its entries that erroneously received a favorable antidumping duty rate. Target said that no "amount of legal legerdemain and reference to" distinguishable case law can "mask the vacuity of" the "attempted distinctions" (Target Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).