Kazakhstani ferrosilicon exporter TNC Kazchrome JSC joined a Malaysian exporter in challenging the final determinations of the Commerce Department’s antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations on its products (see 2507220068). It also challenged the International Trade Commission’s final injury determination (TNC Kazchrome JSC v. United States, CIT # 25-00127, -00128, -00129).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 23 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade on July 22 granted four importers' voluntarily dismissals of six cases challenging the 2021-22 reviews of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood products from China. In addition, the court dismissed importer Skyhigh Tech's case, per its request, challenging CBP's denial of its protest claiming its drones were improperly deemed excluded.
Five importers and one Vietnamese exporter brought a total of 12 complaints to the Court of International Trade on July 18 challenging the Commerce Department’s use of adverse facts available in circumvention inquiries regarding antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood products from China (Rugby Holdings LLC v. United States, CIT #s 25-00119, -00122) (Hardwoods Specialty Products US v. United States, CIT #s 25-00117, -00121) (USply LLC v. United States, CIT #s 25-00111, -00112) (Vincent Wood Joint Stock Co. v. United States, CIT #s 25-00113, -00114) (Richmond International Forest Products LLC v. United States, CIT #s 25-00120, -00116) (Northwest Hardwoods, Inc. v. United States, CIT #s 25-00115, -00118).
In a July 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade, domestic antidumping duty petitioners CC Metals and Alloys and Ferroglobe USA, Inc. alleged a Malaysian ferrosilicon investigation’s mandatory respondent should have been hit with an adverse facts available rate. The respondent, meanwhile, challenged the AFA rate it did receive in the Commerce Department’s countervailing duty investigation determination in its own complaint (CC Metals and Alloys v. United States, CIT # 25-00131).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Commerce Department adequately supported its de facto specificity finding regarding Indian state-run coal supplier Coal India's provision of coal to respondent Hindalco Inndustries for less than adequate remuneration, the Court of International Trade held in a July 22 decision. In the ruling, Judge Joseph Laroski also upheld Commerce's decision to use U.N. Comtrade data as a benchmark for calculating the size of the coal subsidy in the 2020-21 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from India.
The World Trade Organization's published its agenda for the Dispute Settlement Body's July 25 meeting. The meeting will feature U.S. status reports on the implementation of DSB recommendations on: antidumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan; antidumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from South Korea; certain methodologies and their application to antidumping proceedings involving China; and Section 110(5) of the U.S. Copyright Act. Status reports also are expected from Indonesia on measures related to the import of horticultural products, animals and animal products, and from the EU on measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products and on certain measures concerning palm oil and oil palm crop-based biofuels.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 22 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade in a confidential July 21 decision remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum foil from China. Judge Claire Kelly said she intends to issue a public version of the decision on or shortly after July 25. The case was brought by various exporters to challenge Commerce's primary surrogate country choice of Romania in the review, along with the agency's selection of specific surrogate value data for various inputs (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00264).