An importer of 3D pen kits again said Feb. 14 that the U.S. hadn’t met the procedural requirements to shield unredacted internal CBP communication under the deliberative process privilege (Quantified Operations Limited v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00178).
The U.S. said Feb. 7 that importer Mitsubishi’s catalyst blocks were actually filters, despite the importer’s arguments otherwise, and thus was properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8421 and assessed Section 301 tariffs (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. United States, CIT # 21-00573).
The Government of India and exporter Balkrishna Industries replied to petitioner Titan Tire Corp.'s arguments against the Commerce Department's finding that Balkrishna didn't use or benefit from India's Advanced Authorization Scheme in the 2021 countervailing duty review on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from India. The Indian government said neither Commerce nor the petitioner had reason to doubt the fact that Balkrishna hadn't benefited from the program, while Balkrishna argued that the Indian government properly verified the information at issue (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00233).
The Department of Defense reversed its designation of exporter Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment as a “Chinese military company,” the exporter and the government said Feb. 6 in a motion for stipulated judgment (Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment Inc. China v. United States, D. D.C. # 24-2357).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 13 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty case after ruling that the Commerce Department must establish a "particularly strong need to deter noncompliance" when setting adverse facts available rates that drastically differ from accuracy margins (see 2501070084). The appellate court rejected a 154.33% AD rate for steel nail exporter Oman Fasteners, which was set after the company missed a filing deadline by 16 minutes. The appellate court said Commerce should only look to impose massive AFA rates based on a record of unreasonable negligence or international misconduct (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
The Commerce Department adequately determined an exporter’s single sale during a new shipper review’s period of review was bona fide, the U.S. said Feb. 12 (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 24-00126).
The Court of International Trade said in a text-only order that it "intends to consolidate" the nine cases challenging the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on aluminum extrusions from China and the nine cases challenging the countervailing duty investigation on the same product if no party objects by Feb. 19. All cases were assigned to Judge Mark Barnett last week. The judge said he set the Feb. 19 date so that only one administrative record needed to be filed in the consolidated action.
The U.S. defended its designation of Chinese lidar company Hesai Technology as a "Chinese military company" in a Feb. 12 brief at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, responding to a host of arguments from Hesai claiming that the designation wasn't backed by substantial evidence and committed various legal errors (Hesai Technology Co. v. United States, D.D.C. # 24-01381).
The U.S. on Feb. 11 filed a motion to strike as misleading a chemical manufacturer’s recent citation of a CBP letter, saying it was “a decision from a separate proceeding, issued by a separate agency” that had been brought up without sufficient prior notice (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. United States, CIT # 23-00080).