The U.S. and a defendant-intervenor each filed a response Jan. 28 to Chinese steel rack exporter Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing, which is challenging the denial of a separate rate in an antidumping duty review due to a missed deadline. The defending parties said Dongsheng failed to show extraordinary circumstances justified its error (Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00085).
Patent attorney Andrew Dhuey offered to appear as amicus curiae at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to defend Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden's decision rejecting an unopposed motion to redact certain confidential information from the merits decision on an AD/CVD injury determination. Dhuey, who is on the trade court's roster of pro bono counsel, said he would like to be appointed by CAFC to defend Vaden's decision, "arguing on behalf of the public interest in judicial transparency" (CVB, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).
CBP unlawfully abused its authority by engaging in retaliation against employees of importer Eteros Technologies USA after the company succeeded at the Court of International Trade in overturning the agency's detention of its marijuana-related drug paraphernalia, Eteros alleged in a new complaint at the trade court (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).
Parts of brake discs used in airplanes are "parts of an aircraft" and properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803, the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 30. Judge Mark Barnett said that since the parts are "used for no other purpose," require "no further processing prior" to their use in a brake disc and have "no other substantial commercial application," they should be classified as aircraft parts.
Petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire voluntarily dismissed its appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of an antidumping duty proceeding in light of the appellate court's decision in a related case rejecting the use of total adverse facts available against exporter Oman Fasteners (see 2501070084). In all, two appeals were filed -- one challenging the Court of International Trade's injunction on the collection of cash deposits at the AFA rate and another on the underlying AD proceeding itself. With the rejection of the AFA rate in the appeal on the injunction, Mid Continent dropped its separate appeal (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1350).
Petitioner Deer Park Glycine this week dropped its case at the Court of International Trade on the 2022 review of the countervailing duty order on glycine from India. The company has brought a host of other cases to the trade court regarding the antidumping duty and countervailing duty measures on glycine, including a 1581(i) action against the Commerce Department's decision to deny a scope ruling application from the petitioner (see 2501070087). Counsel for Deer Park declined to comment (Deer Park Glycine v. United States, CIT # 24-00268).
Defendant-intervenor Dixon Ticonderoga on Jan. 28 joined the Commerce Department in opposing pencil importer School Specialty’s scope ruling challenge before the Court of International Trade (School Specialty v. United States, CIT # 24-00098).
Steel rail coupler importer Wabtec filed a supplemental brief in its dispute against a repeated antidumping investigation (see 2405220058) that saw it change tracks somewhat. It argued that the International Trade Commission wrongly expanded the scope of its injury determination to include unattached couplers, and it claimed that “[e]very statutory element imposes a limit” on Commerce’s ability to define an investigation’s reach (Wabtec Corporation v. United States, CIT #s 23-00160, -00161).
The Commerce Department's antidumping duty order on artist canvas from China is "void-for-vagueness and unconstitutional," importer Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its opening brief. The company argued that Commerce's "impermissibly unlawful" scope ruling including its canvas banner matisse within the scope of the order "denied Berger adequate notice," adding that the agency "failed to address due process concerns of vague language in the scope of the order" (Printing Textiles v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1213).
The Commerce Department must more fully explain its calculation methodology used to account for the differences in volumes of lumber purchased by exporter Les Produits Forestiers D&G and its affiliate, Les Produits Forestiers Portbec, from unaffiliated suppliers, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Jan. 29. Judge Mark Barnett said the U.S. failed to "clarify Commerce's decision-making" behind the calculation in the expedited countervailing duty investigation on softwood lumber products from Canada.