The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case will appeal a Court of International Trade decision upholding the rate calculated for non-individually investigated respondents in an antidumping duty administrative review on steel nails from Taiwan (see 2206170040). PrimeSource Building Products and consolidated plaintiffs Cheng Ch International Co., Ltd., China Staple Enterprise Corporation, De Fasteners Inc., Hoyi Plus Co., Ltd., Liang Chyuan Industrial Co., Ltd., Trim International Inc., UJL Industries Co., Ltd., Yu Chi Hardware Co., Ltd., and Zon Mon Co., Ltd. will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to two notices of appeal filed Aug. 12. In the June 16 opinion, the trade court found the plaintiffs did not provide enough evidence to to establish that the expected method -- the practice of averaging adverse facts available rates in the absence of non-AFA, zero or de minimis margins -- should not be used (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S. CIT #20-03911).
Nucor Corporation, both consolidated plaintiff and defendant-intervenor in a countervailing duty case, is appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a lower court ruling that the Commerce Department properly found that electricity was not provided below cost in South Korea, in an investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate (see 2206130054), it said Aug. 12. Court of International Trade Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that both issues previously remanded by the Federal Circuit -- Commerce's reliance on the preferential-rate standard and its failure to address the Korean Power Exchange's (KPX's) impact on the South Korean electricity market as rendering cost-recovery analysis -- now comply with the appellate court's ruling (POSCO v. United States, CIT Consol. #16-00227).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
While plaintiffs in a solar cell antidumping review case were satisfied with the Commerce Department's switch from adverse facts available and how it values silver paste on remand, they still contest the agency's positions on how to value backsheets and ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) using surrogate data. In comments to the Court of International Trade, the plaintiffs, led by Risen Energy, argued the Commerce's bid to further defend its valuation of backsheet and EVA inputs is unsupported by substantial evidence (Risen Energy v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-03743).
CBP and importer Launchlab reached a deal on the proper tariff classification of the company's pet carriers, the parties announced in an Aug. 4 stipulated judgment on agreed statement of facts at the Court of International Trade. The pet carriers were liquidated under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4202.92.90 as "travel, sports or similar bags," dutiable at 17.6%. Per the agreement, the pet carriers will be liquidated under subheading 6307.90.98 as other textile articles, dutiable at 7%. CBP issue refunds with interest, settling a case that began seven years ago (Launchlab v. U.S., CIT #15-00288).
Antidumping duty respondent Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi relied on a "mischaracterization of the facts" when arguing against the Commerce Department's use of home market prices denominated in Turkish lira, antidumping petitioners, led by Cleveland-Cliffs, argued in an Aug. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The petitioners said that, contrary to the respondent's contention, the invoice stated prices in lira and that it was the lira value and not the U.S. dollar value that controlled how much the customer paid, making Commerce's move legal (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. United States, CIT #21-00527).
The U.S.'s "unreasonable delay" in asserting claims seeking to collect antiduming duties on entries of canned mushrooms brought in between 2000 and 2001 warrants dismissal of its case at the Court of International Trade seeking the duties, surety company American Home Assurance Co. (AHAC) argued in an Aug. 1 reply brief. Responding to the court's request for more briefing over AHAC's affirmative defense and claims of prejudice, the surety company said that it has not been able to actually provide significant evidence of actual harm "despite best efforts," but that the case should be decided on statute of limitations grounds (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175).