The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 4 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's method for picking an adverse facts available rate for antidumping duty respondent Sino-Maple as part of the sixth review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from China. Judge Richard Eaton partially vacated his previous opinion in the case following oral argument with the parties, finding that Commerce was in fact not barred from using mandatory Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co.'s "highest transaction-specific dumping margin" as Sino-Maple's AFA rate.
The Court of International Trade doesn't have subject-matter jurisdiction over the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's (FLETF) addition of entities to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 3 motion to dismiss. Seeking dismissal of a case filed by Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp., the government said that because the FLETF's decision is neither an embargo nor a quantitive restriction, the court doesn't have jurisdiction over the proceeding under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
World Trade Organization members, meeting Sept. 27-28, swapped views on how to ramp up transparency on other members' agricultural measures. Members of the Committee on Agriculture suggested "streamlining and simplifying the current export subsidy notification requirements" and mulled over a proposal from the committee chair to specifically address transparency, WTO said.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against Greek exporter Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry was "flawed" since the agency never gave the company a chance to comment on its calculation and analysis, Corinth argued in its Sept. 29 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The exporter added that Commerce also failed to support its use of a 41.04% AFA rate since the company didn't withhold information, impede the antidumping duty review on large diameter welded pipe from Greece or fail to submit information in the form and manner requested (Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2094).
The Court of International Trade's decision ordering CBP to reliquidate customs entries flatly cuts against a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that ruled against reliquidation after a court case led to a higher dumping rate for a different exporter, retail giant Target told the appellate court (Target v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).
A series of opinions from the Court of International Trade concerning whether the U.S. can file a counterclaim in classification cases do "not seem to change the fundamentals of classification litigation," customs lawyer Lawrence Friedman of Barnes Richardson said in a blog post. If the opinions are sustained on appeal, potential government claims seeking a different classification than the one initially used at liquidation by CBP may just be moved "from the counterclaim bucket to the defense bucket," the post said.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Steel importer NLMK Pennsylvania and the U.S. asked for another 60 days to continue hammering out the details in the steel company's suit on the Commerce Department's refusal to grant it exclusions for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties. The parties initially sought a stay in August, telling the court that they had "reached an agreement in principle to settle the case" (see 2308100018). In their joint status report, NLMK and the U.S. said to effectuate the deal, the U.S. "must review NLMK's import data," adding that both sides are working to collect and review that data (NLMK Pennsylvania v. U.S., CIT # 21-00507).
U.S. steel companies "confuse" a case from Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) seeking reconsideration of an International Trade Commission negligibility decision due to new facts with an "attack on the original negligibility decision," Erdemir said. Filing a reply brief to the steel companies' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the Court of International Trade's "residual jurisdiction," Erdemir said the true nature of its action challenges the ITC's "refusal to initiate a reconsideration proceeding to reconsider the neglibitily determination" of hot-rolled steel from Turkey "in light of the successful appeal of Colakoglu" (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00349).