Petitioner Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers contested Feb. 24 two importers’ “slanderous” argument that the domestic rail coupler industry committed fraud that tainted an International Trade Commission injury investigation. Acknowledging the Association of American Railroads’ investigation of domestic producers’ sales of an unapproved knuckle model, it denied that any fraud had occurred (Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00157).
The Commerce Department placed an "undue emphasis on prefabrication" in a scope ruling on pencils in violation of its own regulations and case law, importer School Specialty said in a Feb. 27 brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to claims from the U.S. and petitioner Dixon Ticonderoga Co., School Specialty said Commerce's "unreasonable fixation on 'prefabrication'" led the agency to "misjudge the true complexity and importance of the processing that occurs in the Philippines" (School Specialty v. United States, CIT # 24-00098).
The Commerce Department complied with the Court of International Trade's previous order telling the agency to accept a submission from antidumping duty respondent Grupo Simec that was previously rejected for being untimely, the trade court held on Feb. 28. Judge Stephen Vaden said the agency properly followed the court's instruction and reduced the 66.7% adverse facts available duty rate on Grupo Simec to zero percent.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The International Trade Commission erred in finding "significant underselling" was the basis on which to determine that imports of frozen warmwater shrimp caused domestic industry harm and in finding the existence of only one domestic like product, trade group Indonesian Fishery Producers Processing and Marketing Association argued in a Feb. 26 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Indonesia Fishery Producers Processing and Marketing Association v. United States, CIT # 25-00035).
Exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret and petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition each contested an element of the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2020 review of the countervailing duty order on Turkish rebar. In comments to the Court of International Trade laying out their disagreements, Kaptan challenged Commerce's use of a report from Colliers International as a benchmark in assessing the benefit Kaptan derived from the provision of land for less than adequate remuneration, while the coalition challenged the agency's finding that exemptions from Turkey's Banking Insurance and Transaction Tax were neither de jure nor de facto specific (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 23-00131).
Antidumping petitioner Nucor Corp. argued last week that the Commerce Department failed to support its "reliance on quarterly costs" in calculating the cost of production for respondent Officine Tecnosider in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel plate from Italy. Nucor said Commerce failed to address concerns raised by the Court of International Trade on the use of the quarterly costs methodology (Officine Tecnosider v. United States, CIT # 23-00001).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 28 sustained the Commerce Department's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete rebar from Mexico. Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce complied with his previous remand order telling the agency to reopen the record and accept a submission from respondent Grupo Simec that it previously rejected for being untimely. On remand, Commerce dropped Grupo Simec's AD rate from 66.7% to zero percent and the rate for the non-individually examined companies from 33.35% to zero percent.
CBP didn't need to refer the question of whether petitioner CP Kelco still made oilfield xanthan gum to the Commerce Department in an antidumping duty evasion case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Feb. 27. Judges Kimberly Moore, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham said the evidence didn't support such a referral and, in any case, such a referral would only apply to future merchandise and not the goods subject to the evasion case.
Importer Northern Tool & Equipment voluntarily dismissed its customs case on the classification of its agricultural sprayers at the Court of International Trade. The importer brought the suit in 2022 to claim that its sprayers of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8424.49.0000, dutiable at 2.4%, and 8424.41.1000, free of duty, and secondary subheading 9903.88.03, which carries a 25% Section 301 duty, should be classified under the duty-free subheading 9817.00.5000. Northern Tool dismissed a similar case last month (see 2501240017). Counsel for the company didn't respond to a request for comment (Northern Tool & Equipment v. United States, CIT # 22-00329).