A petitioner told the court Feb. 2 that an exporter had filed its remand comments late because it replied in the response time allocated for defendant-intervenors, but had argued in its secondary capacity as a plaintiff. The exporter disagreed, saying it had been “clearly identified” as a defendant-intervenor by the court (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00077).
The Commerce Department unfairly assumed four Chinese tire exporters were under government control because they couldn't participate as separate rate respondents in a 6-year-old administrative review, importers and exporters said Feb. 2 in comments on the department’s remand determination in an antidumping duty review of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).
The Commerce Department misidentified two South Korean government programs as countervailable subsidies, including one that it had previously deemed too unspecific, a Korean steel exporter said Feb. 5 at the Court of International Trade (POSCO v. U.S., CIT # 24-00006).
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.
Chinese exporter Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. on Feb. 5 filed its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, contesting the surrogate data used by the Commerce Department in the agency's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2413).
A group of U.S. mattress makers led by Brooklyn Bedding filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 5 challenging the Commerce Department's decision to find exporter PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia's tri-folding mattresses were not within the scope of the antidumping duty order on mattresses from Indonesia (Brooklyn Bedding v. United States, CIT # 24-00002).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 7 upheld CBP's decision to drop its finding that importer Norca Industries Co. and International Piping & Procurement Group evaded the antidumping duty order on pipe fittings from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that CBP's finding, made after the Commerce Department conducted a covered merchandise referral on remand, was backed by substantial evidence. The covered merchandise referral found that the importers' carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings were outside the order's scope.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importers J. Conrad and Metropolitan Staple Corp. filed a stipulation of dismissal on Feb. 5 with the Court of International Trade in both of their cases challenging the expansion of the Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto derivative products. The dismissals were filed in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision not to review a case from exporter Oman Fasteners on the same issue (see 2401080037). The high court's refusal to hear the case marked the sixth time the court turned down the opportunity to review presidential Section 232 action taken under President Donald Trump. The cases brought by J. Conrad and Metropolitan Staple Corp. were stayed until the Oman Fastener matter was final (J. Conrad Ltd v. United States, CIT # 20-00052) (Metropolitan Staple Corp. v. United States, CIT # 20-00053).
Importer Fit for Life sought reinstatement of its customs challenge Feb. 2 after it was dismissed that same day due to lack of prosecution (Fit for Life LLC v. U.S., CIT #20-00006).