The Court of International Trade sustained the remand results in two similar antidumping duty cases after the Commerce Department dropped a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production in the sales-below-cost test. The court issued two opinions on Sept. 17, both in cases brought by steel exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Ltd. which challenged the 2016-17 and 2017-18 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves had issued a total of three prior remands between the two cases, finding that the PMS adjustment was contrary to law, prompting Commerce to finally drop the adjustment under respectful protest.

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

The International Trade Commission did not properly consider the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the domestic industry for passenger vehicle and light truck tires in a less than fair value investigation on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam, Sumitomo Rubber (Thailand) Co. said in a Sept. 16 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Sumitomo argued that the commission "utterly failed" to consider the entire record showing that the imports did not adversely impact the domestic PVLT tire industry.

The Commerce Department was wrong to exclude sales made by an antidumping review respondent that were further assembled in a third country before being shipped to the U.S., in an AD duty review, plaintiff JA Solar said in its Sept. 15 complaint to the Court of International Trade. Commerce had "copious" amounts of evidence showing that the respondent knew that the final destination of the goods was the U.S., meaning the agency should have included them in the review, the complaint said (JA Solar International Limited, et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00514).

Engine manufacturing giant Cummins Inc. launched a challenge to CBP's denial of its protest claiming its turbocharger housings qualify for a specific Section 301 tariff exclusion, in a Sept. 15 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The challenge seeks to prove that Cummins' imported "housings" or "covers" that are assembled into turbochargers quality for the compressor housings exclusion laid out by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (Cummins Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00517).

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

The Court of International Trade granted the Department of Justice's motion for extension of the time of service in a penalty action against Kevin Ho, the owner and director of importer Atria, in a Sept. 14 order. After being briefed by both Ho and DOJ, Judge Timothy Reif also decided not to quash service even though the U.S. served Ho's counsel with the wrong summons and complaint (United States v. Chu-Chiang “Kevin” Ho, et al., CIT #19-00038).

CBP recently updated its frequently asked questions about the withhold release order aimed at silica-based products from China that made a first mention of de minimis considerations (see 2108030026). CBP's revised response to a question about whether finished products containing a small percentage of silica-based products subject to the WRO now says the agency “recognizes there may be some very fact-specific instances, where the question of the contribution of prohibited labor to the whole of a product (from a quantitative and a qualitative perspective) is something that a court might consider with respect to the statutory intent of Section 1307 of Title 19, United States Code.” The updated version also removes any mention of the phrase “de minimis” and an example of a de minimis contribution.

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

The Commerce Department was wrong to extend a total adverse facts available antidumping duty finding to "all other" respondents in an AD review, Indian exporter Kisaan Die Tech Private Limited said in a Sept. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Kissan Die Tech Private Limited v. United States, CIT #21-00512). Commerce picked only one company, Chandan Steel Limited, to serve as mandatory respondent in the 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India. However, Commerce had more than 40 to choose from, Kisaan said. Nevertheless, the agency settled for just Chandan and hit it with the punitive 146.25% dumping rate after finding that the company failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. "Commerce never determined that Plaintiff nor any of the other 'all other' respondents failed to cooperate with the agency’s review to the best of their ability," Kisaan said. The plaintiff now argues that it is not affiliated with Chandan and thus should not face the consequences for its alleged failure to cooperate.