The U.S. on Sept. 24 moved to dismiss mattress importer Pay Less Here's suit on the International Trade Commission's critical circumstances finding on mattresses from Burma, saying the company failed to file an entry of appearance in the proceeding. The government said that, as a result of this failure, the company isn't an "interested party" that can challenge the determination at the Court of International Trade (Pay Less Here v. U.S., CIT # 24-00152).
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
Responding to exporters and importers of Thai solar panels, the U.S. argued Sept. 25 that it hadn’t unlawfully elevated one relevant factor, research and development, in a circumvention inquiry over the other four. It agreed the Commerce Department had prioritized R&D -- but that was reasonable in context and allowable by statute, it said (Canadian Solar International Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00222).
The U.S. and importer Cozy Comfort traded briefs at the Court of International Trade seeking to discredit the other side's evidence ahead of a bench trial on the classification of the importer's wearable blanket, called The Comfy (Cozy Comfort Company v. United States, CIT # 22-00173).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, filed separate notices of dismissal in two cases at the Court of International Trade. In both cases, the importer said CBP refused to explain why it denied a protest on its vehicle parts after the agency assessed antidumping duties 78.55% higher than it had been assigned in a past AD review (see 2407240019 and 2408090021). The cases both said CBP failed to provide adequate reasoning for denying the protests. In one, the company said the protest denial improperly centered on a message from the Commerce Department, which it wasn't given access to. Counsel for the importer didn't immediately respond to request for comment (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply, LLC v. U.S., CIT #s 24-00124, -00149).
The International Trade Commission on Sept. 23 opposed exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari's (Erdemir's) motion to consolidate three of its appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. International Trade Commission, Fed. Cir. # 24-2242).
The U.S. on Sept. 20 defended the Commerce Department’s continued decision on a second remand to use Brazil as the primary surrogate country and Malaysia for the surrogate values of a particular input in a 2019-2020 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00190).
The Commerce Department on Sept. 23 said that it can permissibly use "inter-quarter comparisons" in the Cohen's d test while detecting "masked" dumping while using "same-quarter comparisons" in its margin calculations. The agency said that "fluctuating production costs," which call for same-quarter comparisons in calculating antidumping duty margins, "do not introduce distortions into the comparison of U.S. prices with other U.S. prices in the Cohen's d test" (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00113).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. on Sept. 20 defended its decision on remand to not apply partial adverse facts available against exporter Garg Tube, claiming that the exporter was "fully cooperative," having made multiple attempts to get cost information from an unaffiliated supplier. The government said Commerce couldn't find enough evidence to show that the potential leverage Garg Tube could exert over the supplier supports the use of AFA (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT # 21-00169).