The Commerce Department on June 7 lowered the dumping margin for nine separate rate respondents in the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, from 42.57% to 31.63%, after revising aspects of its dumping analysis (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. United States, CIT # 19-00144).
A domestic producer of glycine brought a motion for judgment against the U.S. on June 6 regarding a negative scope ruling that calcium glycinate was too far removed a precursor of glycine to be covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders on glycine (Deer Park Glycine, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00238).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer MTD Products filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade June 5 claiming its spark-ignition reciprocating or rotary internal combustion piston engines from China were improperly denied Section 301 exclusions by CBP (MTD Products v. U.S., CIT # 22-00174).
A company that imports air fryers brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade on June 5, arguing that its fryer are not “cooking stoves, ranges or ovens” but rather fall under the relevant “other” category (Sensio Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00152).
The Court of International Trade on June 5 amended a decision it issued last week rejecting the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against an exporter doing business as Supermel in the antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Brazil (see 2405310043) (Apiario Diamante Comercial Exportadora Ltda. v. United States, CIT # 22-00185).
On remand, the International Trade Commission failed to comply with the court's order and cherry-picked evidence to maintain its previous ruling that fertilizer imports had injured local producers, a Moroccan phosphate fertilizer exporter said May 30 to the Court of International Trade (OCP v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00219).
The Court of International Trade on May 30 denied the government's out of time motion to extend its time to respond to importer Atlas Power's requests for admissions for all discovery in a customs suit. Judge Stephen Vaden said it denied the motion since relief is available under CIT Rule 36, which "includes a mechanism for a party to request that an admission be withdrawn or amended" (Atlas Power v. U.S., CIT # 23-00084).
Antidumping duty respondent Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a reply brief last week that the U.S. and petitioners Nucor Corp. and SSAB Enterprises failed to adequately defend the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against the respondent in the AD investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).
The Court of International Trade on June 4 dismissed a customs classification suit on kids' erasable e-writing tablets from China following importer Kent Displays' notice of dismissal. The notice came after the importer lost a similar case at the trade court, which saw the government prevail in claiming that the tablets fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8543, which has a 2.6% duty rate (see 2405090037). In the separate case, Kent was freed from having to pay Section 301 duties on its imports since they didn't cover the tablets at the time of entry (Kent Displays v. United States, CIT # 20-03803).