In remand results released March 4, the Commerce Department rescinded a 2019 administrative review of a countervailing duty order with regard to Dominican aluminum extrusion exporter Kingtom Aluminio (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 22-00079)

Commerce should show broad deference to the "intent of the petitioner" when assessing scope rulings, a domestic petitioner argued to the Court of International Trade on March 3. The petitioner was supporting the U.S. in cases involving antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on freight rail couplers, saying that the case’s plaintiff, an exporter, had incorrectly argued that its goods were beyond the scope of the investigation due to a substantial transformation (Wabtec Corporation v. U.S., CIT #s 23-00160, -00161).

The date range proposed in a consent motion enjoining liquidation of Thai-origin truck and bus tires extends into November 2025 because that will be the end of the first administrative review period under an antidumping duty order, the U.S. explained in response to a court query (United Steel, Paper and Forestry International Union v. United States, CIT # 25-00004).

Opposing remand results by the Commerce Department (see 2410310052) -- which saw a company's antidumping duty rate rise from 31.7% to 37.2% in a review -- that company, mobile access equipment exporter Zhejiang Dingli Machinery, pushed back against Commerce’s use of a petitioner’s freight costs data. That data was composed of only price quotations, not actual transactions, the exporter argued (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00152).

The Commerce Department properly chose not to use domestic producer Edsal’s desired surrogate in a review of boltless steel shelves from Thailand, the agency said in response to Edsal’s motion for judgment (see 2412100059) (Edsal Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00108).

Surety company Aegis Security Insurance Co. owes nearly $2 million in unpaid duties on Chinese-origin fresh garlic, the U.S. said in a Feb. 28 complaint (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 25-00051).

Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann agreed March 3 to stay a case brought by rail coupler importer Amsted Rail Co. until a similar case concludes (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00268).

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).