The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 3 dismissed a False Claims Act suit against Amazon, which alleged that the online retail giant conspired with Chinese manufacturers to avoid paying fees and tariffs on fur products. Judge Edgardo Ramos held that importer Henig Furs, the company that brought the suit on behalf of the U.S., failed to adequately allege that Amazon knowingly violated the FCA or was engaged in a conspiracy to violate the statute (United States, ex rel. Mike Henig v. Amazon.com, S.D.N.Y. # 19-05673).

Plaintiff tomato exporter Bioparques de Occidente, the U.S. and defendant-intervenor the Florida Tomato Exchange each supported Jan. 7 the Commerce Department’s redetermination on remand in a case involving a 27-year-old antidumping duty investigation after a consolidated plaintiff opposed it (see 2412040052) (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00204).

The Commerce Department unlawfully chose to break with its past practice of not considering subsidies provided by the Russian government prior to April 1, 2002, in a countervailing duty review on phosphate fertilizers, respondent JSC Apatit argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Jan. 9, Apatit argued that Commerce failed to apply this cut-off date when analyzing whether mining rights were provided to the company for less than adequate remuneration in the 2022 review of the CVD order (Joint Stock Company Apatit v. United States, CIT # 24-00226).

Importer Florida Power & Light Company argued Jan. 9 that the Commerce Department had unreasonably elevated one country-of-origin factor -- research and development -- in importance above the other four in an antidumping duty review of solar cells from Cambodia (see 2412260039) (BYD (H.K.) Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00221).

The Commerce Department unlawfully found that countervailing duty respondent The Ancientree Cabinet Co. benefited from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty review, importer Craft33 Products argued in a Jan. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Craft33 said it's "one of a number of American firms caught in the crossfire of Commerce's approach to the EBCP and the wider trade war with China" (Craft33 Products v. United States, CIT # 24-00224).

The Commerce Department announced Jan. 8 that, on remand, it was still maintaining use of partial adverse facts available for steel exporter Nippon Steel in a review of hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan. It said it wasn’t enough that the exporter’s affiliate was refusing to provide certain requested information, nor that the exporter was prevented by Japanese law from making provision of that information a contractual obligation of the affiliate (Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00533).

In a Jan. 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade, exporter Zhejiang Dingli Machinery challenged the results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Chinese-origin mobile access equipment (Zhejiang Dingli Machinery v. United States, CIT # 24-00221).

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

The U.S. and exporter PAO TMK agreed Jan. 8 to dismiss PAO’s case against the Commerce Department’s determination in its Russian seamless pipe countervailing duty investigation. Commerce found in the investigation that PAO received countervailable subsidies through the provision of natural gas for less-than-adequate remuneration and through loans from Russian state-owned banks. The case was stayed in 2021 following a consent motion (see 2112290005) (PAO TMK v. U.S., CIT #21-00531, -00534).

The U.S. Jan. 6 supported the Commerce Department’s final results in an Indian off-road tires countervailing duty review against attacks from petitioner Titan Tire. A mandatory respondent didn’t receive the benefit of import duty exemptions from the Indian government, it said (Titan Tire Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00233).