The U.S. on Feb. 28 defended the Commerce Department’s continued use on remand of German third-country comparison market data for an antidumping duty investigation on Dutch-origin mushrooms. It said Commerce had adopted a presumption that actually favored petitioner Giorgio Foods, despite Giorgio's opposition to the new results (Giorgio Foods v. United States, CIT # 23-00133).
Sprinkler importer Melnor brought a complaint against the government Feb. 28 contesting CBP’s revocation of a long-standing practice of classifying its sprinklers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9817 (Melnor, Inc. v. United States, CIT # 25-00052).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a case on the Commerce Department's selection of a surrogate financial statement in a review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Oman (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1039).
Petitioner Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers contested Feb. 24 two importers’ “slanderous” argument that the domestic rail coupler industry committed fraud that tainted an International Trade Commission injury investigation. Acknowledging the Association of American Railroads’ investigation of domestic producers’ sales of an unapproved knuckle model, it denied that any fraud had occurred (Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00157).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. and importer Mac Sports settled a 2021 case involving the classification of Mac Sports’ “non-mechanically propelled carts/wagons” from China. They said the merchandise, which CBP classified on entry as non-mechanically propelled “trailers and semi-trailers; other vehicles,” will instead be classified as “carts, not mechanically propelled,” allowing them to avoid assessment of Section 301 duties (Mac Sports v. United States, CIT # 21-00134).
The International Trade Commission erred in finding "significant underselling" was the basis on which to determine that imports of frozen warmwater shrimp caused domestic industry harm and in finding the existence of only one domestic like product, trade group Indonesian Fishery Producers Processing and Marketing Association argued in a Feb. 26 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Indonesia Fishery Producers Processing and Marketing Association v. United States, CIT # 25-00035).
Exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret and petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition each contested an element of the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2020 review of the countervailing duty order on Turkish rebar. In comments to the Court of International Trade laying out their disagreements, Kaptan challenged Commerce's use of a report from Colliers International as a benchmark in assessing the benefit Kaptan derived from the provision of land for less than adequate remuneration, while the coalition challenged the agency's finding that exemptions from Turkey's Banking Insurance and Transaction Tax were neither de jure nor de facto specific (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 23-00131).
Antidumping petitioner Nucor Corp. argued last week that the Commerce Department failed to support its "reliance on quarterly costs" in calculating the cost of production for respondent Officine Tecnosider in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel plate from Italy. Nucor said Commerce failed to address concerns raised by the Court of International Trade on the use of the quarterly costs methodology (Officine Tecnosider v. United States, CIT # 23-00001).
Importer Northern Tool & Equipment voluntarily dismissed its customs case on the classification of its agricultural sprayers at the Court of International Trade. The importer brought the suit in 2022 to claim that its sprayers of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8424.49.0000, dutiable at 2.4%, and 8424.41.1000, free of duty, and secondary subheading 9903.88.03, which carries a 25% Section 301 duty, should be classified under the duty-free subheading 9817.00.5000. Northern Tool dismissed a similar case last month (see 2501240017). Counsel for the company didn't respond to a request for comment (Northern Tool & Equipment v. United States, CIT # 22-00329).