The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Exporters Deacero and I.N.G.E.T.E.K.N.O.S. Estructurales on Oct. 3 dropped their antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade. The companies filed suit last month to contest the final results of the Commerce Department's 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico. Counsel for Deacero didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Deacero v. United States, CIT # 25-00216).
German aluminum manufacturer Speira argued in an Oct. 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade that CBP failed to apply the antidumping duty rate the Commerce Department calculated for Hydro Aluminum Rolled Products to its entries, since Commerce found that Speira is the successor-in-interest to Hydro. As a result, CBP refused to refund the excess duties paid by Speira, the company said (Speira v. United States, CIT # 25-00218).
The Commerce Department improperly found that the plain language of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on chassis and subassemblies thereof from China cover Vietnamese chassis with Chinese-origin components, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 8. Judge Claire Kelly said the orders "contain multiple ambiguities," including "when components are included within the scope of the Orders," when third-country operations exclude the individual components from the orders, and the meaning of "subassemblies ... whether ... assembled or unassembled."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 8 held that the Commerce Department's "cross-ownership regulation" turns on whether the purpose of the subsidy provided to a cross-owned input provider "is to benefit the production of both the input and downstream products." In clarifying how the regulation is to be applied, Judges Jimmie Reyna, William Bryson and Kara Stoll held that the Court of International Trade was right to reject Commerce's application of this regulation to countervailing duty respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals in the countervailing duty investigation on polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from India.
During oral argument held Sept. 3 at the Court of International Trade, Judge Mark Barnett expressed skepticism about an argument that negative antidumping duty and countervailing duty determinations regarding a product preclude the Commerce Department from starting circumvention inquiries into the same product (SeAH Steel Vina Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00256, -00257, -00258).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 8 affirmed the Court of International Trade's rejection of the Commerce Department's application of its "cross-ownership regulation" to countervailing duty respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals in the CVD investigation of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from India. In the investigation, Commerce attributed a subsidy received by Inox Wind to Gujarat, since Inox sold the respondent wind power that constituted only 1.03% of total power consumed by the company.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 8 remanded a Commerce Department scope ruling that importer Pitts Enterprises' chassis from Vietnam containing Chinese-origin axle and landing gear components fall under the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on chassis and subassemblies thereof from China. Judge Claire Kelly held that Commerce must adopt the "plain meaning of the word 'entered'" in the AD/CVD orders, "namely 'entered into the United States.'" Kelly also rejected the agency's claim that the plain meaning of the orders covers Chinese-origin parts that enter the U.S. as part of a chassis. She found that the orders are ambiguous as to "when components are included within the scope of the Orders." They're also unclear on when third country operations remove these parts from the orders, as well as on the meaning of "subassemblies ... whether ... assembled or unassembled." Lastly, the judge told Commerce to reconsider its decision to impose AD/CVD on the "entire value of the imported chassis" rather than just on the Chinese-origin parts.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade: