Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, an importer of enriched isotope compounds, supported Jan. 23 its October motion for judgment (see 2410250044) over the government’s opposition (see 2412260034). It again said its products aren’t covered by the relevant antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders -- or, alternatively, if the orders are ambiguous, the Commerce Department must conduct an analysis of k(1) factors (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. United States, CIT # 23-00080).
After the Trump administration released a memo outlining the scope of trade action to be taken during his term, one thing became clear, according to a variety of trade attorneys: antidumping duty and countervailing duty rates are about to soar.
Various exporters led by Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. challenged the Commerce Department's antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on aluminum foil from China at the Court of International Trade (Hangzhou Five Star Aluminum Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00231) (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00228).
The Commerce Department issued a final rule making various changes to its antidumping and countervailing duty procedures, notably altering its nonmarket economy policy in AD cases by allowing entities in third countries "owned or controlled" by nonmarket economies to be subject to the country-wide AD rate for that nation.
The U.S. opposed Canadian lumber exporters' bid to get the court to clarify its instruction to CBP to "discontinue ... the collection of" cash deposits made on entries brought in before a prior Court of International Trade decision, which said it wasn't equitable to subject the companies' exports to the countervailing duty order on Canadian softwood lumber (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).
The U.S. on Sept. 23 told the Court of International Trade an exporter "confuses statutory schemes" when it claims that past negative antidumping and countervailing duty determinations shield against anti-circumvention findings on the same goods from the same countries. Defending the Commerce Department's circumvention findings of the AD/CVD orders on circular welded carbon quality steel pipes and tubes from China, India and South Korea, the government said exporter SeAH Steel Vina Corp. conflated the criteria for AD/CVD investigations with those for circumvention inquiries (SeAH Steel Vina Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol # 23-00256).
The Commerce Department on July 12 released a proposed rule updating various aspects of its antidumping and countervailing duty regulations. The agency said the changes largely "codify existing procedures and methodologies" and also "create or revise" provisions related to the "collection of cash deposits," use of AD rates on nonmarket economy nations, calculation of an all-others' rate, respondent selection and "attribution of subsidies received by cross-owned input producers and utility providers to producers of subject merchandise."
The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 doesn't require payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, to affected domestic producers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said July 15. Judges Alan Lourie, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham said that the statute only provides for interest that's "earned on" antidumping and countervailing duties and "assessed under" the associated AD or CVD order.
The U.S. is seeking over $1.1 million in unpaid antidumping and countervailing duties plus a $2 million civil penalty against importer Forest Group USA and its alleged successor company, Drapery Hardware USA, the government said in a customs penalty suit filed July 10 (U.S. v. Forest Group USA, CIT # 24-00117).
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during a July 11 oral argument probed the government and parties to an antidumping and countervailing duty scope case on its standard of review in the scope case. Judge Sharon Prost said at the outset that the court is "being very careful" in terms of what it says on standard of review issues in "light of all of the recent opinions and litigation concerning standard of review" in administrative law issues (Worldwide Door Components v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1532).