The Commerce Department properly excluded various mattress models made by exporter PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia from the antidumping duty order on mattresses from Indonesia for being either "multifunctional furniture" or "mattress toppers," the Court of International Trade held on March 7. However, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said five models of PT Ecos' mattresses didn't clearly qualify for the mattress topper exclusion, since the evidence didn't sufficiently establish that they were used on top of mattresses.
Frozen fish fillet petitioner Catfish Farmers of America again argued March 5 the U.S. was wrong to state that it hadn’t sought certain information from a review respondent, and, because of that, a gap in the record was justified (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 24-00082).
Pea protein exporters filed their motion for judgment March 4 in their case challenging the use of adverse facts available for China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty investigation (Zhaoyuan Junbang Trading Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00180).
The Court of International Trade affirmed March 7 the Commerce Department’s decision to not grant antidumping duty investigation respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals a home market price offset.
The Court of International Trade affirmed March 10 the Commerce Department’s decision to use India as a surrogate over Indonesia in an antidumping review of frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. It said the department acted reasonably in finding that the Indian data was overall better. Regarding labor costs, it “had to choose between two regulatory preferences,” one for using only one surrogate and one for contemporaneous information, and it was Commerce’s “prerogative” to choose the latter, the court said.
The Court of International Trade on March 7 remanded in part and sustained in part the Commerce Department's 2020-22 review of the antidumping duty order on mattresses from Indonesia. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce properly excluded various mattress models made by respondent PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia under the "multifunctional furniture" and "mattress topper" exclusions. However, the judge said substantial evidence didn't support the exclusion of five models of the respondent's products under the mattress topper exclusion, since there was no indication they were used on top of mattresses. Choe-Groves also agreed to the government's request for a voluntary remand to reconsider the calculation of constructed value profit, selling expenses and constructed export price ratios.
Correction: In oral argument, Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif grappled with whether the Commerce Department reasonably selected a broader, less-specific plywood price dataset over a smaller, more specific one. He also dealt with the department’s application of adverse facts available to multilayered wood flooring review respondents after a finding of government control based on the Chinese government’s “deficient” questionnaire responses (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00136) (see 2503050059).
The U.S. filed a March 4 motion to consolidate cases brought by exporter Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations (see 2412240029) and petitioner United Steel, Paper and Forestry (see 2502070071). Both cases concern the final determination in an antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from Thailand (Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations v. United States, CIT # 24-00263; United Steel, Paper and Forestry International Union v. United States, CIT # 25-00004).
Petitioner The Mosaic Company and exporter OCP again traded briefs at the Court of International Trade regarding a countervailing duty review on Moroccan-origin phosphate fertilizer. Each defended its own prior motion for judgment (see 2408120049) (The Mosaic Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00246).
In a March 5 complaint before the Court of International Trade, German importer MTU Maintenance Hannover brought a single claim disputing CBP’s classification of a mid-frame assembly used in GE Aerospace’s LM2500 gas turbine engine. It said it had just sent the U.S.-origin product back for repairs (MTU Maintenance Hannover v. United States, CIT # 25-00023).