The Commerce Department was wrong to hit importer AM Stone with adverse facts available during antidumping duty and countervailing duty reviews on Chinese-origin quartz surface products for its exporter’s failure to provide information, AM Stone said in a July 27 brief. Despite Commerce's claim otherwise, substantial evidence shows the quartz countertops were manufactured in Malaysia, not China, AM Stone said, arguing that it shouldn’t have been assigned the China-wide 326.15% AD rate and 45.32% CVD rate (AM Stone & Cabinets v. U.S., CIT # 24-00241).

The Commerce Department slashed antidumping duty respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe's antidumping duty rate to zero percent on remand in a case on the administrative review of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand for the 2018-19 review period. The case was remanded after the Court of International Trade said Commerce failed to notify Saha Thai of supposed deficiencies in its submissions (see 2212020060) (PT. Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00049).

Importers Wego and Galleher didn't waive or forfeit their arguments against the Commerce Department's separate antidumping duty rate calculated in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China for the 2016-17 review period, the importers argued in a July 31 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Galleher Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 25-1196).

The Court of International Trade on July 31 granted exporter Hindalco Industries' voluntary dismissal of its case on the 2022 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from India. Hindalco filed a complaint in the case in January, arguing that the Commerce Department wrongly found to be specific programs by which Hindalco had been provided bauxite mining rights and coal and bauxite by the government of India for less-than-adequate remuneration. Counsel for Hindalco didn't respond to a request for comment (see 2501130074) (Hindalco Industries v. United States, CIT # 24-00234).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 30 granted the government's motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief in a case on whether the Commerce Department had adequate industry support to launch the antidumping duty investigations on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, South Korea and Russia. However, the court said the motion is granted "to the limited extent that the United States’s response brief is due no later than" Aug. 4, noting that the reply brief is still due no later than Sept. 3 (Tenaris Bay City v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 25-1382).

Two monosodium glutamate (MSG) importers told the Court of International Trade in a July 30 complaint that the Commerce Department unlawfully subjected MSG entries from Malaysia that used Chinese glutamic acid to the antidumping duty order on MSG from China retroactively (CPF Legacy v. United States, CIT # 25-00149).

The U.S. responded July 25 to importer Prysmian Cables and Systems' remaining claims challenging the Commerce Department’s rejection of the importer’s Section 232 requests, saying a number of them had already been covered by the Court of International Trade's dismissal. It also defended Commerce's ability to deny exclusion requests for national security purposes (Prysmian Cables and Systems USA v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).

The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade on July 29 signed off on importer Briggs & Stratton's dismissal of its case on CBP's assessment of excess duties, taxes and fees on its engine parts and components (see 2301250071). The importer filed its notice of dismissal last month (see 2506270029). Briggs & Stratton brought the suit to argue that the duties were added due to clerical and technical errors. The case was previously dismissed for lack of prosecution, though the trade court re-added it to the court's docket after the company asked for relief (see 2502040015) Counsel for Briggs & Stratton didn't respond to a request for comment on the reason for dismissal (Briggs & Stratton Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00014).

In a July 25 complaint to the Court of International Trade, Chinese xanthan gum exporter Deosen Biochemical (Ordos) alleged the Commerce Department’s 10th antidumping duty review of its products wrongly assigned it partial adverse facts available for a sales date disagreement (Deosen Biochemical v. United States, CIT # 25-00145).