Importer WHP Associates evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on thermal paper from China, Germany and Korea by transshipment through Malaysia, according to a recently released notice from CBP. In an Enforce and Protect Act investigation, CBP found substantial evidence showed that Malaysian company Actan transshipped Korean, German,and Chinese-origin thermal paper through Malaysia that was then imported by WHP with a false country of origin claim.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a countervailing duty scope case in which the court said exporter China Custom Manufacturing's solar panel mounts do not qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusions from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China (see 2303020037). CCM unsuccessfully filed for a rehearing of the opinion, arguing that the court needed to look at the case again to ensure uniformity of the appellate court's prior decisions on the "unambiguous plain language" of the finished merchandise exclusion rule (China Custom Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1345).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should not allow countervailing duty respondent Tau-Ken Temir to "continually revise its opening brief under the guise of a Notice of Correction," CVD petitioners Globe Specialty Metal and Mississippi Silicon argued in a reply brief. Voicing their opposition to TKT's and the Kazakh Ministry of Trade Integration's request to file a fourth opening brief, Globe and Mississippi Silicon said that "even a cursory review of the changes" shows a "litany of changes that are substantive in nature, including new arguments and sentences, deletions of material, and large-scale replacements of discussion" (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
Commerce should not have excluded sales of certain cylinders sold by Sahamitr Pressure Container in its home market or used the average-to-transaction (A-T) price comparison method in its calculations, the Thai exporter said in a May 8 complaint to the Court of International Trade. SMPC asked the trade court to declare that Commerce's exclusion of certain cylinders from the calculation as out of scope, as well as and its use of the A-T price comparison method, was in error and to remand the results to Commerce (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. United States, CIT # 23-00077).
The Korean Government's Port Rights Program did not provide Hyundai Steel Company with a countervailable benefit, the company said in its May 8 remand comments at the Court of International Trade (Hyundai Steel Company v. U.S., CIT # 21-00536).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 9 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Commerce Department illegally failed to revoke the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber from Canada for exporter Resolute FP Canada in the expedited first sunset review of the AD order, the exporter argued in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. The four-count suit says that Commerce unlawfully said Resolute FP was selling merchandise below value via its use of the Cohen's d test, which found the company to be guilty of "masked" dumping, and zeroing (Resolute FP Canada v. United States, CIT # 23-00095).
The Commerce Department filed an unopposed voluntary remand motion at the Court of International Trade in an antidumping duty case so the agency can consider information submitted by respondent Officine Tecnosider on Commerce's use of the quarterly cost methodology. DOJ said it couldn't find Commerce's analysis of the quarterly average prices of steel slab when prepping its reply brief to Officine Tecnosider, leading to the remand request. The trade court set a status conference for May 15 to discuss the motion (Officine Tecnosider v. United States, CIT # 23-00001).
A suit at the Court of International Trade challenging CBP's assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties on imported sinks and kits should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to pay duties before filing the case, DOJ said in a heavily redacted May 5 motion. DOJ asked the court to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and to dismiss one count of the complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted (RH Peterson Co. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00099).