A Chinese brick exporter alleged Dec. 4 at the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department is illegally expanding the scope of its antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese-imported magnesia carbon bricks (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00117).
The Commerce Department's finding that calcium glycinate is outside the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on glycine from India, Japan, Thailand and China was not backed by substantial evidence, AD/CVD petitioner GEO Specialty Chemicals argued in a Dec. 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade (GEO Specialty Chemicals v. United States, CIT # 23-00238).
In court Dec. 5, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges showed significant skepticism about a domestic steel manufacturers’ claim that a foreign steel exporter illegally paid an importer’s antidumping duties (U.S. Steel v. U.S., # 22-2078).
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during Dec. 7 oral arguments sharply questioned importer Rimco's arguments that it didn't need to raise an Eighth Amendment challenge to its adverse facts available rate administratively at the Commerce Department before challenging it in court (Rimco v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2079).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 7 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 6 on AD/CVD proceedings:
A U.S. importer of 3D-printing pens argued in the Court of International Trade that its pens should be reclassified as toys, or otherwise as either mechanical heating devices or motorized hand tools. Such an action would reduce or eliminate the antidumping duty for its products (Quantified Operations Limited v. U.S., CIT # 22-00178).
Canadian softwood lumber exporters argued Monday that they should be able to intervene in a growing case regarding the Commerce Department’s 2021 administrative review of the antidumping duties on their products (Government of Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00187).
CBP's failure to seek clarification from the Commerce Department on whether importer Vanguard Trading Co.'s surface products were subject to the antidumping duty order on quartz surface products from China as part of an AD evasion case was "arbitrary and capricious," Vanguard told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 4 complaint (Vanguard Trading Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00253).