The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department wrongly called its own decision memoranda in other, similar proceedings “new factual information” that could be, and had been, “untimely raised,” a petitioner said in a July 22 brief -- six months after that petitioner relied on them in its own administrative filings (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. U.S., CIT # 24-00039).
A glycine exporter moved for judgment July 23 in a case charging that the Commerce Department unreasonably rejected its allegedly “duplicative” scope ruling application after a previous request, which the exporter argued lacked key information, resulted in a ruling it disagreed with (Deer Park Glycine v. U.S., CIT # 24-00016).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 24 denied exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co.'s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc of the court's decision to include dual-stenciled pipe in the scope of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).
CBP refused to explain why it denied a vehicle parts importer's protest after the agency liquidated its entry at a rate 78.55 percentage points higher than it had been assigned in a past antidumping duty review, the importer said in a July 23 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Strategic Import Supply v. U.S., CIT # 24-00124).
The Court of International Trade on July 23 said CBP didn't have the authority to extend an order from the court enjoining liquidation of various entries to imports entered by Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply. Judge Mark Barnett dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding that because Acquisition 362 wasn't a party to a separate case challenging the antidumping duty rate assessed on the company's goods, it wasn't subject to the court's order suspending liquidation of various tire entries.
China lifted its antidumping measures on Japanese stainless steel products July 23, Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry announced, according to an unofficial translation.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 24 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade in a confidential July 22 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's decision to continue using adverse facts available against countervailing duty respondent The Ancientree Cabinet Co. related to its alleged receipt of benefits under China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. Judge Richard Eaton said he intends to issue a public version of the decision "in the near future," giving the parties until July 29 to review the opinion for confidential information (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00110).
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.