The Commerce Department's cross-owned input supplier analysis in a case on the 2018 countervailing duty review of steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey "has a direct and precedential bearing" on the Court of International Trade's decision in the case on the 2020 review of the same order, exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret told the trade court (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 22-00149).
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 7 dismissed an antidumping duty case from lumber importer West Fraser Mills for failure to file a complaint by the time limits set in court rules. West Fraser was challenging the Commerce Department's 2021 review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada (West Fraser Mills v. U.S., CIT # 23-00209).
The Commerce Department erroneously used Malaysian tariff schedule subheading 4402.90.1000 as the surrogate value for coal-based carbonized materials in an antidumping review of activated carbon instead of the broader Harmonized System subheading 4402.90, exporters Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. and Carbon Activated Corp. argued. Filing their opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the exporters said Commerce's decision was based on "inaccurate and unsupported factual findings" (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade granted importer Time After Time Manufacturing's motion to dismiss its own customs case concerning its entries of plant carts. The importer filed the case in September, arguing that its plant carts of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9403.20.0050, free of duty, and secondary subheading 9903.88.03, subject to 25% Section 301 duties, qualify for subheadings 9817.00.5000 and 9403.20.0050, both free of duty (Time After Time Manufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 23-00203).
Antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret filed a second notice of supplemental authorities in its AD case at the Court of International Trade to point to a separate AD review involving a duty drawback adjustment and Commerce's requirement that only closed inward processing certificates be included in the numerator of Commerce's per unit calculation (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00616).
Counsel for importer Larson-Juhl US will proceed with the company's customs case alongside two cases from the relevant exporter, China Cornici Co., which is also represented by the same counsel. Submitting a joint status report to the Court of International Trade, Clark Hill attorneys said that they made the decision to allow the three cases to "proceed independently" instead of staying one of them following a meeting with the court in which Judge Stephen Vaden "asked the parties to reconsider the request to continue the stay and to discuss the order in which the three cases should proceed" (Larson-Juhl US v. United States, CIT # 23-00032).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's key decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States doesn't apply to an Enforce and Protect Act case brought by importer All One God Faith since the importer's entries are all liquidated, the U.S. told the appellate court. Submitting a letter to the court on Nov. 7, the government argued that the court "has not addressed its jurisdiction over cases where all entries were liquidated with antidumping duties and those liquidations became final and conclusive," adding that this fact distinguishes it from Royal Brush (All One God Faith v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit questioned antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube Co. and respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. during a Nov. 7 oral argument over Wheatland's claim that a Commerce Department scope ruling improperly excluded dual-stenciled pipe from the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).
CBP abused its discretion by ignoring explicit antidumping and countervailing duty scope language when it found that importer and AD/CVD petitioner Pitts Enterprises evaded the AD/CVD orders on chassis and subassemblies thereof from China, Pitts argued in a Nov. 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The importer admitted to integrating Chinese axle and landing gear leg components into finished chassis shipments, which were finished in Vietnam, but it said individual Chinese components were "explicitly removed from the scope" (Pitts Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 23-00234).