The Court of International Trade on March 13 severed exporter Fontaine's case against the expedited countervailing duty investigation on softwood lumber products from Canada from the consolidated action on the review. Judge Mark Barnett sustained the review "with respect to Fontaine," ordering that the relevant entries be liquidated in line with the court's decision. In January, Barnett sustained the Commerce Department's use of Fontaine's FY 2015 tax returns to calculate the amount of the tax benefits received by the company (see 2501290040). The remaining issues in the case are unrelated to Fontaine (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).
Exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret will appeal a recent decision at the Court of International Trade, which held that the Commerce Department reasonably used Kaptan's invoice date as the date of sale in the 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete rebar from Turkey (see 2501150021). In the decision, the court also upheld Commerce's differences-in-merchandise adjustment, finding that the adjustment wasn't distortive in the way that it controlled for inflation (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 24-00018).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices March 14 on AD/CVD proceedings:
A panel of trade remedy authorities including a former Commerce Department assistant secretary and two U.K. government representatives surveyed March 13 the increasingly complicated global trade remedies realm, touching on how the two countries have reacted, in Georgetown University Law Center’s annual International Trade Update.
Importer Houston Shutters defended its Section 1581(i) case at the Court of International Trade against the Commerce Department's failure to open a changed circumstances review of antidumping and countervailing duty determinations on wood moldings and millwork products from China. Filing a reply brief on March 12, Houston Shutters said jurisdiction doesn't require it to challenge Commerce's investigations, adding that Commerce itself uses the reviews to consider information that wasn't present during the investigation (Houston Shutters v. U.S., CIT # 24-00193).
The Commerce Department excluded seven types of bricks imported by Fedmet Resources Corp. from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China on remand at the Court of International Trade. The agency said, under protest, that the seven brick types had an "above-zero quantity of alumina and were based on testing procedures which properly determined the alumina content at the time of importation" (Fedmet Resources Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00117).
A panel of attorneys for importers, domestic petitioners and the government discussed March 13 topics that included the consequences -- or lack thereof -- Loper Bright might have on scope ruling litigation.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices March 13 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Court of International Trade on March 10 dismissed a group of exporters' antidumping duty suit for lack of prosecution. Exporters Norma (India), USK Exports Private, Uma Shanker Khandelwal & Co. and Bansidhar Chiranjilal brought the case last month against the Commerce Department's 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on finished carbon steel flanges from India (see 2502030068). Counsel for the exporters said in an email that the companies decided not to pursue the case (Norma (India) Limited v. United States, CIT # 25-00037).