A domestic petitioner said in a May 3 complaint that the Commerce Department failed to explain why it hadn’t adjusted the conversion costs of a 2021-2022 antidumping duty review’s mandatory respondent even though it had done so in the past (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. U.S., CIT # 24-00070).
toSearch Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
A Spanish olive growers industry group, Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa, along with Agro Sevilla Aceitunas and Angel Camacho Alimentacion, brought suit at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's finding that demand for the "prior stage product" is "substantially dependent" on demand for the "latter stage product," in the 2021 review of the countervailing duty order on ripe olives from Spain (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. United States, CIT # 24-00078).
In a May 1 complaint, a Malaysian exporter of utility scale wind towers took issue with several decisions made by the Commerce Department in a 2021-2022 countervailing duty administrative review, including its refusal to grant an entered value adjustment (EVA) and its choice of surrogate market (CS Wind Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00079).
An importer whose products weren’t covered by the revocation of an antidumping duty order -- because the importer filed its end-use certifications with post-summary corrections instead of at entry -- argued in the trade court May 1 it couldn’t have fulfilled the requirements of the underlying changed circumstances review because they hadn’t been released yet (Kiswire Inc. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00181).
Petitioners filed a motion for judgment May 1 contesting the International Trade Commission’s negligibility finding regarding aluminum extrusions from the Dominican Republic imported from 2022 to 2023. They alleged that the initial data collected by the ITC proved the imports exceeded the negligibility threshold, but that the commission unlawfully altered that data and ignored evidence that imports seem to be increasing over time (U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition v. U.S., CIT # 23-00270).
The Court of International Trade on May 1 and May 2 dismissed two lawsuits -- one at the behest of the plaintiff, Vinh Hoan Corp., the other for lack of prosecution. Vinh Hoan contested the Commerce Department's final results in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. Plaintiff's counsel Matthew McConkey said the voluntary dismissal was filed after later action from Commerce "demonstrated our issue of concern was moot, especially as our calculated rate was 0%." Importer van Gelder's suit challenging the classification of its floor covering (vinyl tiles) was dismissed because the suit wasn't removed prior to the expiration of the customs case management calendar's period of time of removal (Vinh Hoan Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00077) (van Gelder v. U.S., CIT # 21-00160).
There is no statutory basis for the U.S. to counterclaim seeking reclassification of an importer’s products under a Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading with a higher rate than the one under which CBP liquidated them, that importer argued in an April 30 motion for judgment in a case that began in 2013 (see 2403140067) (BASF Corp. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 13-00318).
The Commerce Department erred in finding that seafood seller Luscious Seafood didn't qualify as a "bona fide wholesaler of domestic like product" during the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, Luscious said in a May 1 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Luscious Seafood v. U.S., CIT # 24-00069).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer North American Interpipe and exporter Interpipe Ukraine reached a settlement with the Commerce Department in the companies' lawsuit seeking a deduction in the exporter's U.S. price by the amount of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs paid in an antidumping duty proceeding. The parties agreed that within 10 days of the court entering judgment, Commerce will amend the final results of the first administrative review of the AD order on oil country tubular goods from Ukraine and set the AD margin for Interpipe Ukraine at 0.01% (Interpipe Ukraine v. United States, CIT # 22-00066).