The Commerce Department must reconsider its final determination in an antidumping duty investigation into truck and bus tires from China, the Court of International Trade said in a Jan. 24 decision. Judge Timothy Stanceu sent the matter back to Commerce so it could reconsider its decision to deny the two groups of plaintiffs -- led by Guizhou Tyre Co. and Double Coin Holdings -- separate rate status in the investigation. The judge said that the agency's reasoning was "vague and ambiguous" as to whether its inquiry focused on the Chinese government's control of the plaintiffs' export activities.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Antidumping petitioner Wheatland Tube Company wants a stay in two cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit until the appellate court issues its final ruling in a separate antidumping duty action. The separate case concerns whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment in the sales-below-cost test when determining normal value. In a December 2021 decision in this case, Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., the Federal Circuit said that no such adjustment is allowed (see 2112100039). Most recently, the appellate court granted an extension of time to file for a full court rehearing of the decision (see 2201030067). Wheatland Tube wants the stay since the case Hyundai Steel concerns "issues virtually identical to those in this case and Hyundai Steel will ultimately dictate the outcome of this appeal." In response, the Federal Circuit granted a separate motion from the Department of Justice to extend its time to file the case's opening brief while the court considers the motion to stay (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1172, #22-1174).
The Commerce Department properly found that importer Vandewater International Inc.'s steel branch outlets are covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China, Island Industries told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 21 brief. Vandewater's and plaintiff-intervenors Sigma Corporation's and Smith-Cooper International's arguments over any differences between their steel branch outlets and BWPF are "factually inconsequential," the brief said (Vandewater International v. United States, CIT #18-00199).
Antidumping respondent Cheng Shin Rubber Industry Co.'s bid to indefinitely extend a preliminary injunction should be rejected by the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice said in a Jan. 18 brief. DOJ said that Cheng Shin failed to show that it will suffer immediate irreparable harm for its entries made beyond the original expiration date of the injunction -- June 30, 2022 -- and that if its entries beyond this date are at risk of being liquidated, that the exporter can just request an extension of the injunction (Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #21-00398).
Since antidumping duty respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries served as a mandatory respondent in five consecutive ADD reviews, the Commerce Department reasonably found that the company did not act to the best of its ability by not being entirely forthcoming in its reporting of the gross unit prices for its home market sales, ADD review petitioner ABB Enterprise said. Responding to Hyundai's arguments in its case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 24 brief, ABB said that Hyundai's reporting error was the result of "carelessness and inattentiveness" while preparing its data. For this reason, the imposition of total adverse facts available is appropriate, ABB said (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems v. United States, Fed Cir. #21-2312).
The Comfy, a wearable blanket imported by the Cozy Comfort Company, should be classified as a blanket rather than a pullover, the importer told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 21 complaint. Due to its Sherpa interior lining and function as a blanket, The Comfy should be classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for a blanket, the complaint said (Cozy Comfort Company v. United States, CIT #21-00404).
The Commerce Department's decision to compare two foreign manufacturers' production processes with integrated steel mills from China was unreasonable, Bruneian company HLDS (B) Steel and Philippine company HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co. told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 24 complaint. Such a comparison -- used in a recent anti-circumvention inquiry -- was unreasonable since integrated steel mills make primary steel in many forms, not just oil country tubular goods -- the merchandise subject to the anti-circumvention inquiry, the complaint said (HLDS (B) Steel SDN BHD v. United States, CIT #21-00638).
The Commerce Department did not adhere to the Court of International Trade's orders when it excluded importer Star Pipe Products' 11 ductile iron flanges from the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China, U.S. producer ASC Engineered Solutions said in a Jan. 21 brief. The court did not instruct Commerce to exclude Star Pipe's flanges but rather to "conduct a more comprehensive review," which the agency failed to do. "Rather, the redetermination simply assumes, incorrectly, that a particular result had been directed by the Court," the brief said (Star Pipe Products v. United States, CIT #17-00236).
An antidumping duty respondent wrongly reported that two of its products had different sensitivity characteristics and thus should have been coded with the same control number (CONNUM), the ADD petitioners told the Court of International in a Jan. 21 complaint. Petitioners Appvion Operations and Domtar also said the Commerce Department should have used partial adverse facts available over the respondent's failure to adequately measure and report the static sensitivity of its thermal paper (Appvion Operations v. U.S., CIT #21-00634).