Exporter Bridgestone Americas Tires opposed March 25 the U.S. motion to consolidate two cases regarding the antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from Thailand (see 2503060053) (Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations v. United States, CIT # 24-00263).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. on March 20 asked the Court of International Trade to dismiss exporter Pipe & Piling Supplies’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction, saying the exporter had failed to notify a USMCA panel of its lawsuit (Pipe & Piling Supplies v. United States, CIT # 24-00211).
Petitioner United Steel, Paper, and Forestry said March 24 that the U.S. was wrongly seeking to narrow the scope of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union v. United States, CIT # 24-00165).
The Commerce Department "violated its statutory obligations" to gain adequate support to launch an antidumping duty investigation, importers led by Tenaris Bay City argued in their March 24 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Tenaris Bay said Commerce failed to examine "intermingled" oil country tubular goods mill and processor production data and proxy shipment information used "in lieu of missing production data" provided by the petitioners "to confirm its accuracy and adequacy contrary to its statutory obligation" (Tenaris Bay City v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1382).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. responded March 20 to surety company Aegis Security Insurance’s motion for judgment (see 2501310069). It said that CBP hadn’t intended to wait eight years before seeking outstanding duties in 2016, but provided several arguments as to why the duties still must be paid (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance, CIT # 22-00327).
The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. In a March 24 confidential decision, Judge Timothy Reif gave the parties until March 31 to review the confidential information in the decision. Parties in the case sparred on Commerce's use of only one mandatory respondent in the review (see 2403110048). After a previous remand requested by Commerce to consider a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision requiring the use of more than one respondent where multiple companies request a review, the agency said it could use only one respondent here, given the "case-specific circumstances" (see 2304030049) (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03885).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on March 17 affirmed the dismissal of steel importer JSW Steel (USA)'s suit against three U.S. steel makers, which alleged that the companies illegally conspired to "boycott JSW by refusing to supply it with specific, domestically produced steel slab" (JSW Steel (USA) Inc. v. Nucor Corp., 5th Cir. # 22-20149).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade: