The U.S. and defendant-intervenor Wind Tower Trade Coalition each pushed back against exporter CS Wind Malaysia’s challenges to a 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on utility scale wind towers from Malaysia (CS Wind Malaysia v. United States, CIT # 24-00079, -00150).
Pea protein exporters and an importer said May 27 the International Trade Commission is wrongly attempting to create a new legal standard for determining the existence of critical circumstances (NURA USA v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00182).
The Court of International Trade, in a decision made public May 29, said failing to act as a mandatory respondent isn't "unrelated to government control" for purposes of getting a separate antidumping duty rate. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce isn't required to establish that companies are part of the Chinese government, because that is the presumption. Rather, he said, it's the companies that must show evidence if they are independent of the government.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 30 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 29 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Importer AM Stone & Cabinets May 22 sought dismissal of one of its challenges to Commerce Department administrative reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on quartz countertops. Its case had argued that Commerce wrongly hit it with adverse facts available to determine that its products were made in China, not Malaysia (see 2501170048) (AM Stone & Cabinets v. United States, CIT # 24-00243).
Exporter Hyundai Steel and the South Korean government each pushed back again May 19 against the Commerce Department’s specificity finding, maintained after a remand, regarding the provision of off-peak electricity by the Korean government to Hyundai for less-than-adequate remuneration. The department completely failed to follow the trade court's remand order, they said (see 2504160043) (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00211).
CBP wasn't required to make a scope referral to the Commerce Department in its antidumping duty evasion case against importer Vanguard Trading Co., since CBP properly exercised its authority in determining that Vanguard's products were under the scope of the relevant AD order, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public May 27.
World Trade Organization members on May 27 elected chairpersons for the 14 subsidiary bodies under the Council for Trade in Goods, the WTO announced. They are:
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 28 on AD/CVD proceedings: