The Court of International Trade on July 3 granted importer Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations' motion to include three documents the Commerce Department declined to put on the record in the antidumping duty investigation into truck and bus tires from Thailand. Judge Gary Katzmann said he needed the three documents to be on the record to properly review whether Commerce permissibly rejected them in the investigation. Katzmann also declined to consolidate Bridgetstone's suit with another case challenging the same AD investigation filed by the petitioner, United Steelworkers.
The Court of International Trade on July 3 sustained CBP's finding that importers Newtrend USA, Starille and Nutrawave evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on glycine from China. Judge Stephen Vaden said the evasion determination, which found that the importers transshipped Chinese glycine in Indonesia, was supported by substantial evidence. Following "an extensive in-person verification" of exporter PT Newtrend's Indonesian factory, CBP found the exporter couldn't make glycine at the scale PT Newtrend and the importers claimed. Vaden said there was substantial evidence for CBP's theory that PT Newtrend acquired glycine from its Chinese parent company to export to the U.S. and that the importers "offer no alternative explanation for how PT Newtrend acquired its glycine."
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 2 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 30 issued its mandate in an appeal related to the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. The court issued its decision in the case concurrently with a decision on the 2018-19 review of the same order, though appellants in the 2018-19 review case recently filed a motion for reconsideration regarding alleged legal errors committed by the court during its review (see 2506250040). No such motion for reconsideration was filed in the appeal on the 2019-20 review, which concerned respondent Carbon Activated Tianjin's challenge to the Commerce Department's use of Malaysian import data under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4402.90.1000, which covers coconut-shell charcoal, as the surrogate value for coal-based carbonized material, an input of activated carbon, among other issues (see 2505090048) (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2413).
The Commerce Department on June 30 reversed its finding that the Moroccan government's tax fine and penalty reduction program is de facto specific, slightly lowering respondent OCP's countervailing duty rate. Commerce said in light of the Court of International Trade's decision rejecting its de facto specificity analysis, it's finding, under respectful protest, that the program isn't de facto specific (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00246).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 1 on AD/CVD proceedings:
A knit underwear importer’s products weren’t correctly classified under the secondary Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9817 for clothing “specially designed” for “physically or mentally handicapped persons,” the U.S. said June 27, which would have exempted them from a 15% antidumping duty on their products (Viecura v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00154).
Importer Wabtec told the Court of International Trade that a recent CIT decision calls into question the Commerce Department's practice of covering upstream components of goods actually imported or sold in the U.S. in antidumping cases. Filing a notice of supplemental authority on June 27, Wabtec said that while CIT Judge Timothy Stanceu didn't affirmatively resolve this question, his discussion is "highly relevant to the matter here" (Wabtec Corporation v. U.S., CIT #s 23-00160, -00161).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 30 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade: