Two multilayered wood flooring exporters, Baroque Industries and Riverside Plywood, said Jan. 23 that the Commerce Department wrongly applied adverse facts available to several of Baroque’s input suppliers, determining they were under government control even though “[n]ecessary information for these eighteen suppliers was not missing from the record” (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00106).

Defendant-intervenor Triune Technofab said the financial information the Commerce Department used in a review of boltless steel shelving units from India should be considered a publicly available record, not a private one (Edsal Manufacturing v. United States, CIT # 24-00087).

The following new lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

Exporter Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Co. took to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 24 to challenge the Commerce Department's surrogate value for land rental prices in Vietnam in the countervailing duty investigation on frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam (Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00030).

Exporter Shanghai Tainai Bearings Co. and importer C&U Americas will appeal a Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's use of neutral facts available against Tainai in the 33rd review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. The court said Tainai's cooperation in the reviews raised questions about how "aggressively" it sought to gain the cooperation of its unaffiliated suppliers, though these questions didn't translate into the use of adverse facts available (see 2412180036). The court also upheld Commerce's practice of excluding additional revenue Tainai collected in connection with its payment of Section 301 duties from the company's U.S. price (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00038).

Petitioners led by Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee opposed Jan. 23 the Commerce Department’s continued finding on remand that an Indian frozen shrimp exporter had no reason to think its unbranded home market sales were destined for sale in a third country. Ad Hoc again argued that, based on record evidence, the exporter “knew or should have known” where its products would end up (see 2404160042) (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00202).

Importer Northern Tool & Equipment Co. dropped its customs suit at the Court of International Trade, which contested the classification of its agricultural sprayers. CBP liquidated the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8424.49.0000 and 8424.41.1000, dutiable at 2.4% and free of duty, respectively, and secondary subheading 9903.88.03, which carries a 25% Section 301 duty. The importer claimed that the goods should fall under subheading 9817.00.5000, free of duty. Counsel for Northern Tool didn't immediately respond to request for comment (Northern Tool & Equipment v. United States, CIT # 22-00197).

No new lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.

Vehicle chassis importer -- and domestic producer -- Pitts Enterprises pushed back against the United States’ interpretation of “subassemblies” with respect to countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders on chassis and subassemblies from China (Pitts Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00030).

The U.S. and importer Cozy Comfort Co. each filed proposed findings of fact and law earlier this month after a weeklong trial before the Court of International Trade on whether to classify Cozy Comfort's product, The Comfy, as a blanket or a pullover (Cozy Comfort Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00173).