After the Court of International Trade remanded the 323.12% adverse facts available antidumping duty rate received by an Indian quartz countertop exporter that missed a 10 a.m. deadline by five hours during the COVID-19 pandemic (see 2405290065), all parties reached a settlement would see the exporter get a new rate of 3.58% (Cambria Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00007).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 11 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on polyester textured yarn from Indonesia that slashed exporter PT. Asia Pacific Fibers' AD rate from 26.07% to 9.2%. On remand, Commerce dropped its use of adverse facts available and relied on Asia Pacific's submitted information under protest.

In response to a U.S. claim that it couldn't move for a motion on its pleadings before issues of fact were settled by discovery (see 2409260061), an importer of tubing for perforating guns said Oct. 15 that it was “impossible” for CBP to find that one of its products should have been classified under a different Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading between the time the importer sought a Section 232 exclusion request and the time it shipped its entry into the country (G&H Diversified Manufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 22-00130).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit last week held that tire retailer Texas Truck Parts & Tire was the "beneficial owner" of tires imported by Chinese manufacturers and, as such, is liable for excise taxes on the imports (Texas Truck Parts & Tire v. United States, 5th Cir. # 23-20588).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Another plaintiff in a sprawling case regarding an affirmative circumvention finding for Vietnamese hardwood plywood added its own support Oct. 15 to its side’s second motion for judgment. It said that the unusual circumstances that led the Commerce Department to essentially conduct a review of 57 companies without a mandatory respondent were “the result of its own misguided decisions” (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00144).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 11 issued its mandate in an appeal of a case on the countervailing duty investigation on Russian phosphate fertilizers brought by exporters Phosagro PJSC and JSC Apatit. The appeal was previously dismissed by CAFC for failure to prosecute (see 2408200028). A separate appeal of the case from exporter Industrial Group Phosphorite continues at the court, with the company claiming that the Commerce Department contradicted the CVD statute in finding that the Russian government's provision of natural gas was de facto specific (see 2408080058) (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1595).

A number of Canadian softwood lumber exporters, on one side of a case, and, on the other, defendant-intervenors led by a domestic trade group, filed in total three briefs supporting their respective motions for judgment (see 2404110063) in a case involving the Commerce Department’s alleged misapplication of the transactions disregarded test to increase the costs of a review’s mandatory respondent (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00187).

A petitioner, a domestic lumber trade group, pushed back against the Commerce Department's ultimate post-remand finding that subsidies received by unaffiliated lumber suppliers were applicable to a few expedited Canadian lumber review respondents, but that those subsidies had no effect on the respondents’ rates. It again alleged that the department had made a “mathematical error” (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT # 19-00122).