No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
Antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi added supplemental authorities to its case regarding the antidumping duty review on aluminum foil from Turkey, it said in its Oct. 30 notice at the Court of International Trade (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00616).
The Commerce Department illegally deducted Section 301 China tariff duties from exporter Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co.'s U.S. price in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China, Fufeng said in its Oct. 30 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. In addition, Fufeng argued that Commerce unlawfully valued the company's energy factors of productions and coal classifications, which Fufeng said skewed the dumping margins (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00068).
After finding it was inappropriate to calculate Universal Tube and Plastic Industries’ dumping margin by comparing the selling prices of U.S. and home market sales made in different quarters, Commerce "did exactly that" in its differential pricing analysis, said Universal, THL Tube and Pipe Industries and KHK Scaffolding and Formwork in their Oct. 26 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Comparing Universal’s selling prices in different quarters of the review period was unlawful because it had separately determined that selling price comparisons of Universal’s sales across quarters was impermissible, said Universal in its request to remand the issue back to Commerce (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00113).
The Commerce Department's analysis of whether a company from a non-market economy has rebutted the presumption of government control was improperly applied to exporters that are minority-owned by state-owned enterprises, exporters Aeolus Tyre Co. and Guizhou Tyre Co. said in a pair of opening briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Both companies said Commerce instead should have considered all four factors relating to the presumption of foreign state control and not just the "truncated analysis" of whether potential control over export activities via control of management selection was in play (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).
The Commerce Department properly calculated the manufacturing overhead ratio in an antidumping duty review because the agency complied with the Court of International Trade's remand order regarding the calculation, the trade court said in an Oct. 30 opinion. Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce legally used the amount for indirect production expenses in the ratio's numerator while stating its reasons for subtracting energy costs from this number and placing them in the denominator, as instructed.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Oct. 31 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade shouldn't reinstate the Commerce Department's exclusion of four Canadian lumber exporters as part of the countervailing duty investigation on softwood lumber products from Canada, the CVD petitioner said in an Oct. 27 brief at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner, the committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, said that the four exporters' "mere assertions" that changed circumstances exist, warranting the retroactive exclusion of the companies, is not enough (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).
Importer Cherish Your Health Food "failed to exercise reasonable care and competence" in submitting import documents related to its entries of fresh garlic from China, the U.S. said in an Oct. 30 complaint at the Court of International Trade. As a result of the company's "negligent violations" of customs laws, the U.S. is seeking over $254,000 related to a group of three entries, dubbed "Group A," it said (United States v. Cherish Your Health Food, CIT # 23-00230).