The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
U.S. importer CME Acquisitions filed a complaint on March 6 at the Court of International Trade to contest the adverse facts available rate for the non-selected companies in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Taiwan (CME Acquisitions v. United States, CIT # 24-00032).
International Rights Advocates said the Court of International Trade's recent decision in Ninestar Corp. v. U.S. "highlights the unreasonableness of CBP's delay in issuing a [withhold release order] against imports of cocoa products made with forced child labor in Cote d'Ivoire" (International Rights Advocates v. U.S., CIT # 23-00165).
The Court of International Trade last week ordered a hearing in a countervailing duty injury case on whether any party violated the court's rules regarding the bracketing of confidential information, suggesting that Rule 11 sanctions were on the table.
The Court of International Trade on March 6 sustained the Commerce Department's fourth remand results excluding Star Pipe Products' ductile iron flanges from the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China.
A group of steel nail exporters led by PT Enterprise will appeal a February Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's use of a simple average of standard deviations in the denominator of the Cohen's d test in detecting "masked" dumping as part of the antidumping duty investigation on steel nails from Taiwan (see 2402120036). The companies will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where the Cohen's d test is being litigated in a lead case, Stupp Corp. v. U.S. The government's central contention in the present case is that Commerce's use of the full population of data precludes it from needing to satisfy statistical assumptions such as the normal variance of data (Mid Continent Steel and Wire v. U.S., CIT # 15-00213).
Three importers said in combined remand comments that CBP was attempting to illegally shift the burden of proof onto them to prove they weren't guilty of evasion under the Enforce and Protect Act (Newtrend USA Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00347).
The U.S. filed another brief supporting its motion to dismiss a case involving the liquidation of entries that were the subject of a prior disclosure, which it argues the Court of International Trade has no jurisdiction to hear (Larson-Juhl US v. U.S., CIT # 23-00032).
The U.S. on March 4 opposed exporter Chandan Steel Limited's motion for reconsideration of the Court of International Trade's order sustaining the company's adverse facts available rate in the 2018-19 antidumping duty review on stainless steel flanges from India. The government argued that the court properly found it didn't need to resolve certain issues pertaining to Chandan's allocation method for reporting its costs of production and that Chandan failed to show any "manifest error" in the court's decision to sustain the use of AFA based on the exporter's inadequate reporting of comparison market window period sales (Kisaan Die Tech Private, Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 21-00512).
The Court of International Trade on March 6 sustained the Commerce Department's fourth remand results excluding Star Pipe Products' ductile iron flanges from the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that Commerce appropriately considered (k)(1) sources given the uncertainty of whether Star Pipe's flanges plainly fit under the order and that substantial evidence backs the conclusion the flanges aren't subject to the order. The judge also said that the agency didn't base its fourth remand results on the "end use" limitation, as suggested by AD petitioner ASC Engineered Solutions.