A recent Court of International Trade decision reviewing the Commerce Department's differential pricing methodology under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is relevant to resolve a nearly identical claim in a separate case, the U.S. told the trade court in a notice of supplemental authority (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00025).

Supporting its July motion for judgment (see 2407160051), Belgium citrate exporter Citribel again asked the Court of International Trade Dec. 6 to find that the Commerce Department’s refusal to conduct quarterly conversion cost analyses is unreasonable (Citribel v. U.S., CIT # 24-00010).

The U.S. opened a customs penalty suit against New York-based importer Courtside Market last week, accusing the company of negligently skirting duties on its inkjet fabric rolls (United States v. Courtside Market, CIT # 24-00233).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential decision sustained the results of the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on pentafluoroethane (R-125) from China. Judge Richard Eaton gave the parties until Dec. 31 to review the confidential information in the decision. The suit was launched by three Chinese exporters to claim that Commerce illegally valued the factors of production of the intermediate product for a refrigerant, anhydrous hydrofluoric acid, instead of valuing the acid's reported factors of production (see 2210270069) (Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00103).

The Commerce Department ignored court precedent when it found magnesia carbon bricks from China that contained alumina were subject to antidumping and countervailing duties, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued Dec. 12.

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

The Commerce Department erred in finding that respondent Habich and its U.S. sales agent aren't affiliated, as well as in its calculations of Habich's normal value based on its third-country sales to Mexico, petitioner Lumimove, doing business as WPC Technologies, argued. Filing a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 5, WPC said Commerce's failure to further investigate the alleged affiliation between Habich and its U.S. sales agent amounted to a "dereliction of duty" (Lumimove, Inc., d/b/a WPC Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 24-00105).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 12 remanded the 2021 countervailing duty review on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea in a confidential decision. Judge Claire Kelly gave the parties until Dec. 16 to review the confidential information in the decision. The central issue in the case is the Commerce Department's finding of de facto specificity regarding the South Korean government's alleged provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration (see 2408130046). Parties in the case also contest Commerce's refusal to accept the 2021 cost information from the state electricity company, KEPCO, as being untimely filed (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00211).

The United Steelworkers labor union again (see 2409050044) said Dec. 10 that an exporter’s temporary-use spare tires should have been covered by an antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan, in a motion for judgment filed with the Court of International Trade (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00165).

Chinese lidar company Hesai Technology on Dec. 9 filed a rebuke of its designation as a Chinese military company, urging the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to reverse the decision due to a host of alleged evidentiary and procedural errors. Hesai said the Pentagon, which recently relisted the company, "still cannot find a single connection to the Chinese military or defense industrial base" (Hesai Technology Co. v. U.S., D.D.C. # 24-01381).