The Court of International Trade last week stayed until Nov. 26 exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry's (Jiaxing Hoshine's) case against a withhold release order on silica-based products made by its parent company, Hoshine Silicon, or its subsidiaries. The parties in the case asked for the stay while Jiaxing Hoshine works its way through the administrative process (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00048).

Surety company U.S. Specialty Insurance Company argued in an Aug. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade that CBP failed to use transaction value to value importer Cheer Rise's garment entries. Instead, the agency arbitrarily decided to use the "fall back method" of appraisal, "rendering the appraisement unlawful," the complaint said (U.S. Specialty Insurance Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00188).

After several years of delay, plywood importer Cabinetworks Group Middlefield filed an Aug. 29 complaint alleging certain of its entries were wrongly assessed the China-wide 114.72% antidumping duty rate instead of its manufacturer’s and exporter’s 57.07% AD rate (Cabinetworks Group Middlefield v. United States, CIT # 21-00499).

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 29 sustained the Commerce Department's decision on remand not to continue applying adverse facts available to a mandatory respondent in the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China (see 2508280047) (Evolutions Flooring v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00591).

CBP unlawfully applied 10% Section 301 duties to importer Shaw Industries Group's Chinese flooring entries, since the goods were subject to an exclusion from the tariffs, Shaw argued in an Aug. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Shaw Industries Group v. United States, CIT # 21-00400).

The U.S. supported Aug. 27 the Commerce Department’s decision, after a voluntary remand, not to continue applying adverse facts available to a mandatory respondent in an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China for the 2018 review period (see 2507140055) (Evolutions Flooring v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00591).

The Commerce Department failed to select more than one respondent in both the antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations on solar cells from Thailand, the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee argued last week in a pair of complaints. The alliance, which served as the petitioner for both investigations, said that Commerce failed to abide by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit precedent by not selecting more than one respondent where multiple companies are subject to the investigations (American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee v. United States, CIT #s 25-00165, -00167).

All parties to a dispute over an antidumping duty review on Japanese-origin flat-rolled steel told Court of International Trade Judge Jane Restani on Aug. 18 that they think the trade court must address questions surrounding the review’s mandatory respondent’s U.S. sales dates (Toyo Kohan Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00261).

The Commerce Department improperly used the financial statements of Indonesian producer PT Suparma to set the surrogate financial ratios in the antidumping duty investigation on paper plates from Vietnam, since Suparma doesn't make merchandise comparable to respondent Go-Pak Paper Products Vietnam, the respondent argued. Filing a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 28, Go-Pak said Commerce also erred in using a simple average of the average unit values for two different Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings to value its paper input, since its input only falls under one of the subheadings (Go-Pak Paper Products Vietnam Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00070).

The petitioner and a pair of respondents traded briefs at the Court of International Trade regarding various elements of the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation on frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador (Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00025).