The Commerce Department unreasonably found that a sales-based particular market situation doesn't exist in Turkey, thus erring in picking Turkey as a third country comparison market in the antidumping duty investigation on melamine from Qatar, petitioner Cornerstone Chemical Co. argued in a Feb. 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Cornerstone Chemical Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00005).

Responding to an exporter’s comments on remand results (see 2412230074), the government said Feb. 3 that the Commerce Department fully complied with a second remand order by the Court of International Trade (see 2406270043). The trade court had ordered it to further explain its selection of a second mandatory respondent in a separate rate review on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).

A domestic steel trade group brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade Feb. 7 alleging that a mandatory respondent in a tire antidumping duty review “was attempting to pass off [a non-market economy] entity as a market-economy entity” and should have been hit with adverse facts available (United Steel, Paper and Forestry International Union v. United States, CIT # 25-00004).

The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

Petitioner CP Kelco U.S. withdrew as a defendant-intervenor in an Enforce and Protect Act evasion case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a Feb. 6 motion. The appellate court held oral argument in the case in October 2024, indicating that the plaintiff, xanthan gum importer All One God Faith, doing business as Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, likely would not succeed in reversing the Court of International Trade's dismissal of the case, since its entries have all been liquidated (see 2410160048). Counsel for CP Kelco didn't respond to request for comment (All One God Faith v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).

The U.S. government fully supported the Commerce Department's decision not to use adverse facts available against exporter Can Tho Import Export Seafood Joint Stock Co. in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, the exporter argued in a Feb. 5 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Can Tho Import Export said Commerce properly found that the respondent fully cooperated in the review and that Commerce correctly rejected the petitioner's allegation of a ministerial error (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 24-00082).

The Commerce Department should have deducted a German thermal paper exporter's interest accrued from unpaid antidumping duties from that exporter’s constructed export price, domestic producer Domtar argued Jan. 31 (see 2408010048) (Domtar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00113).

The following lawsuit has been filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. on Feb. 3 brought a complaint against importer Shunny Corp., doing business as Sampac Enterprises, alleging that the company negligently misreported the country of origin of its health products to avoid import duties. The government is seeking nearly $200,000 in unpaid duties, along with a nearly $1.4 million penalty (United States v. Shunny Corp., CIT # 25-00039).

The U.S. moved to dismiss importer Houston Shutters' case at the Court of International Trade filed under Section 1581(c) against the Commerce Department's "unpublished determination not to initiate a changed circumstances review." The government said the decision not to start the CCR isn't a decision listed under either 19 U.S.C. § 1516a or 1517, either of which would give the trade court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1581(c) (Houston Shutters v. United States, CIT # 24-00175).