The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department improperly withdrew a questionnaire issued to an antidumping duty and countervailing duty respondent, Repwire and Jin Tiong said in a pair of identical complaints filed Feb. 21 at the Court of International Trade. Commerce's subsequent refusal to accept Jin Tiong's questionnaire responses led the agency to then illegally apply an adverse facts available rate, the companies said (Repwire v. United States, CIT #22-00016) (Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer v. United States, CIT #22-00023).
A Commerce Department scope ruling improperly found two-ply hardwood plywood falls under the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China because the scope language clearly says that subject merchandise consists of a minimum of three plies, said three companies, Vietnam Finewood, Far East American and Liberty Woods, in a Feb. 18 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Vietnam Finewood Company Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #22-00049).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Feb. 22 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A challenge by mattress importers to the Commerce Department's use of a statistical test in its effort to root out "masked" dumping should be dismissed because the importers suffered no injury, the Department of Justice and antidumping petitioners said in a pair of Feb. 17 reply briefs. The Court of International Trade, DOJ and the petitioners said the test was inconsequential to the antidumping duty matter, making the challenge to it moot (Ashley Furniture Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00283).
The Court of International Trade rejected on Feb. 18 a group of Chinese exporter's arguments that a glass input for aluminum extrusions is not countervailable since it ties in to non-subject merchandise. Since the plaintiffs' arguments are "largely conclusory statements" and not backed by evidence on the record, Judge Leo Gordon said that the Commerce Department properly found that the glass inputs were countervailable.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Feb. 18 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed nine antidumping duty and countervailing duty challenges until a full resolution is reached in another proceeding over whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below cost test. In a series of three orders, the appellate court paused the cases pending resolution of the request for an en banc rehearing in the other case, Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S.