The Commerce Department properly excluded dual-stenciled pipe from the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Aug. 25 opinion. Judge Stephen Vaden ruled that no line pipe was made in Thailand when the original AD investigation was conducted almost 40 years ago and that the International Trade Commission made no harm finding for line or dual-stenciled pipe from Thailand.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade failed to recognize that key facts in a customs fraud case are not in dispute, but if it had, the court "would likely have" come to a different conclusion over when the statute of limitations had run out for the U.S. to bring its case, defendants Greenlight Organic and Parambir Singh Aulakh argued. Filing a motion for rehearing Aug. 25, the defendants said the trade court committed an error when finding that a piece of evidence has to establish fraud for the statute of limitations to begin to run and not merely give allegations of misconduct to the government (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT #17-00031).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a recent and highly anticipated opinion ruled that CBP cannot consider a country's non-market economy status when deciding whether to grant first sale treatment to a transaction (see 2208110060). The case, brought by importer Meyer Corp., now heads back to the Court of International Trade, which will hear arguments over how to appraise cookware imported by Meyer. John Peterson, counsel for Meyer, told Trade Law Daily that he is considering two options when the case gets back to the trade court: seek a retrial or mediation.
The Court of International Trade denied plaintiff Nucor's motion for a stay in a countervailing duty case, finding that the steel producer's arguments were "not persuasive." Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves denied the stay in an Aug. 23 order, declaring a stay pending resolution of another action over the same countervailing duty review "would delay the just and speedy resolution of this litigation" (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00137).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 24 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's move to drop its particular market situation adjustment for a key input of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea in an antidumping duty review. Commerce had previously dropped the PMS adjustment for one of review's mandatory respondents but not the other. In the case's fourth remand results, the agency dropped the adjustment for the other, lowering non-selected respondent SeAH Steel Corp.'s dumping rate from 19.28% to 9.77%. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sustained the move to drop the adjustment for the other respondent.
The Commerce Department stuck by its positions in an antidumping duty review, in Aug. 23 remand results. The agency further explained its selection of India as the primary surrogate country and its analysis of respondent NTSF Seafoods' reporting of the company's ratio of whole live fish to fillets and the moisture content of the fillets (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT #20-00105).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should send back the Commerce Department's constructed value (CV) profit rate for antidumping respondent Building Systems de Mexico (BSM) if the court does not uphold the de minimis rate calculated by Commerce on remand, BSM argued in Aug. 19 comments. Arguing that the remand results should be sustained, BSM, replying to the AD petitioner, continued to critique the CV profit rate in case the de minimis rate is not upheld (Building Systems de Mexico v. United States, CIT #20-00069).
The Commerce Department unlawfully used an alternate method for calculating normal value in an antidumping duty review on goods from China, respondent Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products argued in an Aug. 22 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The exporter argued Commerce illegally based normal value on the price at which the subject merchandise, square tubes, is sold in other countries, rather than base normal value on the quantity of raw materials used to make the square tubes (Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00116).