Importer Cambridge Isotope Laboratories told the Court of International Trade April 9 that following consultations with petitioner Committee for Fair Trade in Ammonium Sulfate, it has filed a new changed circumstances review request with the Commerce Department (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. U.S., CIT # 23-00080).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. on April 9 requested that the Court of International Trade not allow plaintiffs to add a new party in a case contesting the final results of the Commerce Department's fourth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Italy (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. U.S., CIT # 24-00039).
An exporter of vehicle side bars said April 8 that Section 301 tariff exclusions shouldn't necessarily be considered princpal use provisions, but should instead be analyzed as either principal use, eo nomine or actual use provisions on a case-by-case basis because no published guidance singles out a specific method (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).
On April 8, an importer sought to withdraw its motion to compel the government to give it certain unredacted documents and the addresses of several former CBP employees “relevant” to its case (see 2310160061) (Lutron Electronics Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00264).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Headphone or speaker retail display shelves imported by Fasteners for Retail aren't covered by an antidumping and countervailing duty orders on prepackaged boltless steel shelving units from China, the Commerce Department said in a March 29 scope ruling. Among other things, the display shelves aren't shelving units -- they are only decks, or parts of shelves, it said.
A xanthan gum domestic producer said in an April 8 complaint that an antidumping duty petitioner hadn’t proved it was actually an “interested party,” but that the Commerce Department had let it participate in an administrative review anyway (CP Kelco U.S., Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00059).
After a remand, the Commerce Department once again refused to exclude certain steel products from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties even though their importer can’t get the needed materials domestically, that importer said in March 8 comments. Instead, it claimed, the department continued to simply rely on the word of its competitor (California Steel Industries v. U.S., CIT # 21-00015).
On April 5, a Vietnamese steel pipe exporter sought to limit, and the U.S. opposed, domestic petitioners’ attempt to consolidate three of the exporter’s cases in the Court of International Trade (SeAH Steel VINA Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00256, -00257, -00258).