The U.S. said Nov. 22 that a vehicle parts importer “misrepresented multiple primary sources” when it argued that, as a petitioner for antidumping and countervailing duty orders on chassis from China, it hadn’t intended Chinese-origin components used in chassis from another country be included (see 2403070060) (Pitts Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00030).
Exporter Chandan Steel Limited will appeal a decision from the Court of International Trade sustaining the 145.25% total adverse facts available rate set against the exporter in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on steel flanges from India (see 2312110043). The Commerce Department said Chandan repeatedly misreported its foreign sales information and the costs of production for those foreign sales. The court upheld the use of AFA to address these misrepresentations, noting that Chandan's responses also had additional deficiencies related to its reporting of gross unit price, quantity discounts, other discounts and duty refunds. The trade court then rejected Chandan Steel's motion for reconsideration of the decision (see 2410030013) (Chandan Steel Limited v. United States, CIT # 21-00540).
The Court of International Trade granted an unopposed motion for partial final judgment Nov. 26, sustaining the antidumping duty rate calculated for exporter Kenda Rubber (China) Co. in the 2016-17 review of the AD order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. Judge Mark Barnett said the rate is "unchallenged and otherwise appears supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law" (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).
Importer PowerTec Solutions filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 25 seeking refunds of Section 301 duties paid on its power supplies and cables (PowerTecSolutions International v. United States, CIT # 22-00322).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importers Struxtur and Evolutions Flooring will appeal a Court of International Trade case on the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. The trade court sustained the Commerce Department's decision to weight average zero percent and adverse facts available antidumping duty rates to set the AD rate for the non-individually examined respondents (see 2409180044). CIT previously remanded Commerce's decision to use a simple average of the zero and AFA rates, instructing the agency to use a weighted average of the rates. The result was a 31.63% AD rate for the separate rate companies. Importers Wego International Floors, Galleher Corp. and Galleher LLC already filed their notice of appeal in the case (see 2411120038) (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 19-00144).
Supporting its own motion for judgment (see 2407190048) in a case regarding the oft-litigated countervailing duties on South Korea’s low-cost provision of off-peak electricity (see 2406200062), the Korean government said Nov. 26 the opposition’s cited cases were distinct from the current situation (POSCO v. U.S., CIT # 24-00006).
After seeking supplemental evidence from both parties, the Commerce Department on remand continued to find that an Indian frozen shrimp exporter had no reason to believe its home market sales of unbranded shrimp were destined for any location other than India. It kept the exporter’s antidumping duty rate at 7.92%, pending the trade court’s approval (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00202).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
In response to a U.S. opposition to its motion for judgment that included an accusation that it had fabricated a lab test (see 2410300052) -- after it itself claimed CBP had put the wrong test on the record (see 2406240048) -- an importer said Nov. 23 that DOJ had illegally “cited to matters from outside the record” (Vanguard Trading Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00253).