The Commerce Department erred in changing the date of sale for respondent Toyo Kohan Co.'s U.S. transactions in the 2022-23 review of the antidumping duty order on diffusion-annealed nickel-plated flat-rolled steel from Japan, the company said in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. The exporter said Commerce "did not justify" its change from using the date of invoice as the date of sale to using the shipment date from Japan as the date of sale (Toyo Kohan Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00261).
Jacob Kopnick
Jacob Kopnick, Associate Editor, is a reporter for Trade Law Daily and its sister publications Export Compliance Daily and International Trade Today. He joined the Warren Communications News team in early 2021 covering a wide range of topics including trade-related court cases and export issues in Europe and Asia. Jacob's background is in trade policy, having spent time with both CSIS and USTR researching international trade and its complexities. Jacob is a graduate of the University of Michigan with a B.A. in Public Policy.
The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) improperly rejected 63 Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests filed by California-based importer Mirror Metals, the company argued in a Dec. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Mirror Metals said that if BIS applied the standards laid out in its regulations, the "only reasonable conclusion" it could have drawn was that the company "cannot obtain the subject steel in the U.S. market in a sufficient quantity or quality, on a timely basis to replace the steel it currently imports" (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT # 24-00260).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Ideavillage Products Corp. on Dec. 19 voluntarily dismissed at the Court of International Trade its customs suit regarding the tariff classification of its shavers and replacement cutting heads. The company challenged CBP's classification of the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8510.30.0000, dutiable at 4.2%, claiming they should be classified under subheading 8510.10.0000, free of duty. Counsel for Ideavillage declined to comment (Ideavillage Products Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00332).
The Commerce Department stuck with its determination in the 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Italy that exporter Dalmine and its Romanian input provider Silcotub shouldn't be collapsed (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. United States, CIT # 24-00039).
The Commerce Department improperly found that exporter Balkrishna Industries didn't benefit from the Advanced Authorization Scheme in India as part of the 2022 review of the countervailing duty order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from India, petitioner Titan Tire Corp. argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 20, Titan Tire said Commerce erred in accepting a "post hoc and incomplete examination" of the program performed by the Indian government (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00207).
International trade attorney Benjamin Bay has been elevated to partner at The Bristol Group, the firm's managing partner Adam Gordon announced on LinkedIn. Bay joined Bristol in 2023, having previously worked as assistant general counsel in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
The World Trade Organization established a dispute settlement panel during the Dec. 18 meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body to review the EU's antidumping duties on fatty acid from Indonesia, the WTO announced. The EU said it "regretted Indonesia's decision" to bring the dispute, believing the measures to be in line with WTO rules. The bloc added that it will preserve the "availability of appeal review" through use of the multiparty interim appeal arrangement, a contingency that safeguards the right to appeal since the Appellate Body is not functioning at this time."
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department appropriately found that details about U.S. seafood seller Luscious Seafood's wholesaling operations don't support the company's claim that it was a bona fide wholesaler of the domestic like product, the U.S. argued in a reply brief filed last week at the Court of International Trade. The government said that, as a result, Commerce permissibly found Luscious' request for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam to be invalid (Luscious Seafood v. United States, CIT # 24-00069).