Importer Pitts Enterprises evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain chassis and subassemblies from China, according to a May 23 Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) notice. The agency said that Pitts knowingly imported finished chassis with numerous Chinese-origin subassemblies as products of Vietnam only, without disclosing the Chinese-origin components.
The Court of International Trade should not stay a case challenging an Enforce and Protect Act finding of evasion while another related case on whether the products were covered by the scope of the relevant antidumping and countervailing duty orders goes through remand, importers argued in a May 24 motion (Far East American, et. al. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00213).
Appellant and importer Smith-Cooper International asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for 3,000 more words in its reply brief as part of a suit on scope case on Vandewater International's steel branch outlets. SCI said appellant Sigma Corp. and the U.S. consented to the request and that good cause exists to allow the company to use more words given the "voluminous nature of the Government’s response brief, covering numerous procedural issues and questions of law and fact." In its reply brief, the government most recently argued that SCI relies too much on industry terms to argue that the steel branch outlets in question are not butt-welded and aren't subject to the antidumping duty order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China (see 2304240058) (Vandewater International v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).
The Commerce Department illegally found that upholstered furniture imported by Amini Innovation Corp. was subject to the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China, the company argued in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. Amini said that its furniture, sold as different collections under its AICO brand differ from the in-scope furniture "in terms of physical characteristics, expectations of ultimate purchasers, ultimate use, channels of trade, and the manner in which they were advertised" (Amini Innovation Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00090).
The Commerce Department illegally relied on raw honey acquisition costs as a proxy to calculate costs of production in the antidumping duty investigation into raw honey from India, despite those respondents withholding information and impeding the investigation, the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association argued in a May 23 brief at the Court of International Trade (American Honey Producers Association v. U.S., CIT # 22-00195).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 25 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Commerce Department's proposed new regulations governing antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings would arm the agency with "new tools to address foreign governments’ inaction that benefit foreign producers," global law firm Akin Gump said in an alert this week. For instance, Commerce could consider evidence of a foreign government's weak laws on human and labor rights or environmental and intellectual property protections when picking benchmark data to find the existence and amount of subsidies in countervailing duty proceedings.
A mobile utility fan imported by HKC is not subject to antidumping duties on hand trucks from China (A-570-891), according to a scope ruling issued by the Commerce Department in April. Commerce found that although the mobile fan matched several characteristics of the hand trucks, it lacked a horizontal projecting edge or toe plate that could slide under loads for lifting or moving.
Although the Commerce Department in an antidumping duty proceeding found that GreenFirst Forest is the successor-in-interest to Rayonier A.M. Canada (RYAM), it concurrently found in a countervailing duty proceeding that the same acquisition was a "significant change," GreenFirst told the Court of International Trade. Even though Commerce uses different standards for starting AD and CVD changed circumstances reviews, GreenFirst thought it was significant that the agency analyzed the acquisition and found "there were no relevant changes to its structure and operations following the acquisition” (GreenFirst Forest Products v. U.S., CIT # 22-00097).
The Commerce Department committed several errors in its antidumping duty administrative review on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico, which resulted in higher AD rates assigned to respondents Maquilacero and TEFLU, as well as the "all-others" rate assigned to plaintiff Perfiles, the company said in a May 23 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Perfiles LM v. U.S., CIT # 23-00094). The company asked the court to remand the review to Commerce.