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).
Petitioner Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers contested Feb. 24 two importers’ “slanderous” argument that the domestic rail coupler industry committed fraud that tainted an International Trade Commission injury investigation. Acknowledging the Association of American Railroads’ investigation of domestic producers’ sales of an unapproved knuckle model, it denied that any fraud had occurred (Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00157).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. and importer Mac Sports settled a 2021 case involving the classification of Mac Sports’ “non-mechanically propelled carts/wagons” from China. They said the merchandise, which CBP classified on entry as non-mechanically propelled “trailers and semi-trailers; other vehicles,” will instead be classified as “carts, not mechanically propelled,” allowing them to avoid assessment of Section 301 duties (Mac Sports v. United States, CIT # 21-00134).