The Court of International Trade on April 1 sustained parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's 2020-21 review of the countervailing duty order on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco. Judge Timothy Stanceu rejected Commerce's finding that Morocco's program for relief from tax fines and penalties is specific to OCP. The judge sustained the remaining issues in the case, which included Commerce's decision not to find a benefit from the provision of mining rights by the Moroccan government, its decision not to countervail the provision of port services, its use of adverse facts available for respondent OCP's failure to report a payroll tax refund, and its ability to request information from OCP on unspecified "other benefits" it received.
Mediation at the Court of International Trade in Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio's challenge to CBP's finding that the company makes aluminum extrusions using forced labor didn't result in a settlement. Judge Leo Gordon submitted a report of mediation on March 28 to the trade court noting the failed outcome of the mediation bid (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).
Melamine exporters led by Qatar Melamine Company brought suit against the Commerce Department March 28 contesting the department’s assignment of adverse facts available to its government-supplied water and electricity purchases (Qatar Melamine Company v. United States, CIT # 25-00053).
Importer Southern Motion told the Court of International Trade that its electric DC motors were made in Vietnam and thus should have received a country of origin determination of Vietnam and not China. Filing a complaint at the trade court on March 31, Southern Motion said its products were improperly assessed Section 301 duties as a result of the COO decision (Southern Motion v. United States, CIT # 25-00033).
The International Trade Commission and court-appointed amicus Andrew Dhuey scrapped over whether Dhuey should be given access to the business proprietary information in an appeal on the Court of International Trade's rejection of a request to redact information released in a court decision (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).
The Court of International Trade upheld parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China.
The Commerce Department "unreasonably" used adverse facts available against exporter Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable Co. in the anticircumvention inquiry on aluminum wire cable from China, barring the company from taking part in the certification process, Tanghenam argued in a March 28 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00049).
Correction: The government, on the other hand, argued that Koehler Paper is the successor-in-interest to Koehler Oberkirch because it has “voluntarily inherited the jurisdictional contacts of Koehler Oberkirch.” Koehler Oberkirch, meanwhile, is the successor-in-interest to Papierfabrik, it said (see 2503270034) (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch, CIT # 24-0001).
Antidumping duty petitioner Catfish Farmers of America dropped two cases at the Court of International Trade concerning the surrogate information used in the 2018-19 and 2019-20 reviews of the AD order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The petitioner said that in light of the trade court's recent decision sustaining the Commerce Department's choice of India as a surrogate over Indonesia in a previous review of the same AD order (see 2503100059), it's dismissing its cases on the later two reviews. The petitioner said it's dropping the cases to conserve resources "while continuing to pursue issues relevant to surrogate country and value selection in ongoing and future administrative reviews" (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT #s 21-00380, 22-00125).
A petitioner March 27 supported a U.S. motion to dismiss exporter Pipe & Piling Supplies’ complaint (see 2503250054). It agreed that the pipe exporter hadn’t established the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over it (Pipe & Piling Supplies v. United States, CIT # 24-00211).