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).

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).

No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

Against opposition from exporters (see 2411190063), the U.S. supported Nov. 21 the Commerce Department’s continued decision on remand to use an inter-quarter comparison for an aspect of an administrative review and same-quarter comparisons for another (see 2409240022) (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00113).

In an eight-count complaint, the Israeli government took issue Nov. 22 with the International Trade Commission’s affirmative injury finding regarding Israeli brass rods. Among other things, Tel Aviv said that the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel, which occurred a week after the period of investigation ended, disincentivized underselling by the country’s exporters because it “significantly impaired” their manufacturing (Government of Israel, Ministery of Economy and Industry v. U.S., CIT # 24-00197).

Importer Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, will appeal a Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's scope ruling that includes Printing Textile's "Canvas Banner Matisse" imports within the scope of the antidumping duty order on artist canvas from China (see 2410090022). In its decision, the trade court found the following sentence to be ambiguous: "Priming/coating includes the application of a solution, designed to promote the adherence of artist materials, such as paint or ink, to the fabric." The court said Commerce's interpretation of this sentence wasn't "per se unreasonable," rejecting Printing Textiles' bid for a narrow interpretation of the words "priming/coating" (Printing Textiles, d/b/a Berger Textiles v. U.S., CIT # 23-00192).