The Court of International Trade on March 20 denied U.S. company Deer Park Glycine's bid to consolidate its two cases before the trade court. One case is challenging the Commerce Department's scope ruling which excluded calcium glycinate from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on glycine from India, Japan, Thailand and China, while the other contests Commerce's rejection of a second scope ruling request on the same product.
The Commerce Department released the final version of regulations on March 22 that will make various key changes in the administration of antidumping and countervailing duty regulations. The changes take effect April 24.
The Court of International Trade in an opinion made public March 21 sustained parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's decision to start the antidumping duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina. Judge Claire Kelly upheld Commerce's decision to rely on "other information" instead of polling the industry to calculate industry support for the investigation. However, the judge sent back the agency's finding that the data relied on "accurately reflected industry support, including whether finishing operations were counted twice," in light of evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, led by Tenaris Bay City.
International trade attorney Kanzanira Thorington has moved from WilmerHale to King & Spalding, according to her LinkedIn page. Thorington initially joined WilmerHale in 2022 after clerking at the Court of International Trade. She joins King & Spalding in Washington as an associate.
The U.S. on March 18 opposed a motion to consolidate an exporter’s two Court of International Trade cases contesting two Commerce Department scope rulings. Those rulings found the exporter’s calcium glycinate was covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders on glycine from India, Japan, Thailand and China (Deer Park Glycine, LLC v. U.S., CIT #s 23-00238, 24-00016).
The Court of International Trade on March 20 upheld the International Trade Commission's decision not to cumulate Brazil's imports with the other countries included in the five-year sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on cold-rolled steel products from Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K.
Russian exporters PhosAgro, Apatit and Industrial Group Phosphorite will appeal a January Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's use of exporter PhosAgro's profit before tax number instead of its gross profit mark when calculating the company's phosphate mining rights benefit (see 2401190037). The exporter will take the case contesting the countervailing duty investigation on phosphate fertilizers from Russia to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In its decision, the trade court rejected PhosAgro's clam that its gross profit number "more accurately reflects the commercial reality" of its pricing process (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00117).
A South Korean exporter of certain corrosion-resistant steel products filed another complaint March 19 in the Court of International Trade saying that a 2014 to 2018 debt-to-equity restructuring led by the Korean government assisted its previous owners, not its current ones (KG Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00056).
The U.S. defended the Commerce Department before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 18 regarding a number of decisions it made during its 13th administrative review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China, including its selection of two Malaysian exporters as surrogates over a respondent’s opposition (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2413).
The Court of International Trade on March 20 sustained the International Trade Commission's decision not to cumulate goods from Brazil with other countries that are part of the five-year sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on cold-rolled steel flat products from Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. Judge Gary Katzmann held that the commission's analysis didn't "engage in impermissibly 'circular' reasoning," the ITC's treatment of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs didn't impermissibly depart from past agency practice and the commission appropriately explained its decision not to cumulate Brazil's goods.