Various companies that were originally excluded from an expedited countervailing duty review on Canadian softwood lumber asked the Court of International Trade to clarify that they're due refunds of CVD cash deposits (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).
Court of International Trade activity
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted exporter CVB's bid to voluntarily dismiss its appeal of an injury finding on mattresses from various Asian countries. Since the U.S. is continuing its cross-appeal in the matter, the appellate court renamed the case in a Nov. 18 order. Judge Jimmie Reyna renamed the case to In Re United States (Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).
Importer MTD Products dropped its case at the Court of International Trade seeking exclusions from Section 301 China tariffs on its spark-ignition reciprocating or rotary internal combustion piston engines. The company filed a complaint in June, claiming that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative established exclusions for engines of its type classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8407.90.1020 and 8407.90.1010 (see 2406060034). Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (MTD Products v. United States, CIT # 22-00174).
The U.S. will reliquidate 352 steel entries from importer Valbruna Slater Stainless without Section 232 duties, though the company will drop its challenge seeking refunds of Section 232 duties on 90 additional entries. Filing a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 15, the government and Valbruna reached the settlement regarding the company's entries following court-led mediation (see 2411120056). Under the judgment's terms, CBP will "promptly reliquidate," without Section 232 duties, 352 entries of steel articles from Italy laid out in an attachment to the stipulation (Valbruna Slater Stainless v. United States, CIT # 21-00027).
The U.S. argued Nov. 15 that an importer of Chinese-origin countertops had waived its challenge to CBP’s practice of initiating Enforce and Protect Act inquiries based on the agency’s “date of receipt” of a petition (Superior Commercial Solutions v. United States, CIT # 24-00052).
The U.S. ignored the Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo in defending its circumvention finding on exporter Canadian Solar, the solar panel exporter said in a Nov. 15 reply brief. Canadian Solar said the Commerce Department should not be shown "tremendous" deference, as claimed by the U.S., since the agency doesn't have "unbridled authority to make an affirmative finding of circumvention" (Canadian Solar International v. United States, CIT # 23-00222).
The Commerce Department continued to use German third-country comparison market data in the antidumping duty investigation on mushrooms from the Netherlands on remand at the Court of International Trade. Addressing the court's concern about whether exporter Prochamp's sales to Germany were actually sold in Germany, the agency said the record lets Commerce "reasonably estimate the percentage of German-language-labelled products sold to Prochamp’s largest German customer," which then may have been sold downstream in another German-speaking country "(i.e., Austria)" (Giorgio Foods v. United States, CIT # 23-00133).
The Court of International Trade defined the term "partners" under the statute regarding affiliation analyses in antidumping duty cases as "a for profit cooperative endeavor in which parties share in risk and reward."
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 14 dismissed petitioner Aloha Pencil Co.'s case challenging the Commerce Department's recission of the review of the antidumping duty order on cased pencils from China, covering entries in 2022-23. The court noted that Aloha Pencil failed to timely file a complaint. Counsel for the company didn't respond to request for comment (Aloha Pencil Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00192).
In short remand results released Nov. 14, the Commerce Department said it was removing the 5.46% Export Buyers' Credit Program rate from a solar cell exporter’s countervailing duty (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00153).