The Commerce Department erred in its selection of a benchmark to value a subsidized lease provided to countervailing duty respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret's affiliate, Nur Gemicilik, Kaptan argued in an Oct. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 25-00225).
In two complaints filed Oct. 10, petitioner The American Personal Transportation Vehicle Manufacturers Coalition challenged the antidumping duty investigation on Chinese-origin golf carts, saying the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission should both have found critical circumstances with regard to an exporter (The American Personal Transportation Vehicle Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, CIT # 25-00203, 25-00204).
In an Oct. 14 complaint, domestic brake drum producer Webb Wheel Products argued that the Commerce Department used the wrong surrogate value for a mandatory respondent’s “recarburizing agent” in its antidumping duty investigation on brake drums from China (Webb Wheel Products v. United States, CIT # 25-00207).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 15 affirmed the validity of the International Trade Commission's affirmative critical circumstances determination on imports of raw honey from Vietnam, which imposed retroactive antidumping duties on the subject goods in the 90-day window prior to the AD investigation's preliminary determination. Judges Richard Taranto, Alan Lourie and Tiffany Cunningham rejected the claim from a group of honey importers that the ITC was required to find that a surge of imports made after the filing of the AD petition had an adverse impact after the final AD order was issued. Writing for the court, Taranto said the relevant statute, 19 U.S.C. Section 1673d(b)(4)(A)(i), "does not demand a determination focused on the time after the antidumping duty order issues."
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 10 issued its mandate after affirming the final results of the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum wire and cable from China (see 2508190041). In August, the appellate court upheld the Commerce Department's decision to reject exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer's response to a separate rate questionnaire that already has been rescinded. The court said "Commerce has broad discretion to set and enforce its regulatory procedures and deadlines" (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
Challenging an affirmative antidumping duty determination regarding Chinese brake drums, an importer and exporter said Oct. 10 that the Commerce Department failed to properly value the sole mandatory respondent’s inland freight costs and scrap recycling process (Consolidated Metco v. United States, CIT # 25-00208).
The Commerce Department improperly attributed freight and marine insurance income to antidumping duty respondent Suncity Metals and Tubes during the 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on Indian-origin welded stainless pressure pipe, the respondent argued in an Oct. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Suncity Metals and Tubes v. United States, CIT # 25-00222).
In a complaint filed Oct. 8, exporter Tao Motor challenged the International Trade Commission’s affirmative injury and critical circumstances findings regarding golf carts from China. It said that imposing the Commerce Department’s recently calculated antidumping duty and countervailing duty rates would end all importation of Chinese-origin golf carts into the U.S. (Tao Motor v. United States, CIT # 25-00199).
Mediation in a customs suit at the Court of International Trade on CBP's detention of importer Inspired Ventures' tire entries didn't result in a settlement, Judge Claire Kelly said in a report of mediation filed on Oct. 9 (Inspired Ventures v. United States, CIT # 24-00062).