In Feb. 13 remand comments filed in the Court of International Trade, a domestic petitioner said that CIT erred in its ruling remanding a Moroccan phosphate fertilizer exporter’s CVD determination and that this forced the Commerce Department to incorrectly recalculate the exporter’s costs (The Mosaic Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00116).
CBP on Feb. 15 reversed its finding that importer Columbia Aluminum Products evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT # 19-00185).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 15 said companies that submit requests for administrative review in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings can intervene as a matter of right at the Court of International Trade.
Certain types of electrical conduit fittings imported from China are not subject to an antidumping duty order on certain malleable iron pipe fittings from that country, the Commerce Department said in a Feb. 8 scope ruling.
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 13 dismissed an antidumping duty case brought by exporter Oman Fasteners for lack of prosecution. Mario Toscano, clerk of the court, said that no complaint was filed "within the period" laid out by 19 U.S.C. 1516a, which says an interested party may file a summons and complaint within 30 days of a determination from the Commerce Department. Oman Fasteners brought the suit to contest the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Oman in which it received a zero percent dumping margin. No separate lawsuit was filed by the petitioner in the review, Mid Continent Steel & Wire (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 24-00008).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 15 rejected the U.S. government's opposition to a host of lumber importers and exporters' requests to intervene in an antidumping review challenge, siding with nearly 30 years of litigation practice in which non-individually selected companies participate in judicial review of AD/CVD cases. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that a request for review in an AD/CVD proceeding is sufficient to justify intervention "as a matter of right" at the trade court, rejecting the government's claim that a party must submit factual information or written argument before Commerce to participate at CIT.
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 8 opinion made public Feb. 13 remanded parts and sustained parts of the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on thermal paper from Germany. Judge Gary Katzmann sustained Commerce's inclusion of exporter Koehler Paper's "Blue4est" paper product within the scope of the investigation, its coding of the dynamic sensitivity product characteristic and its application of price adjustments for some home market rebates.
German exporter AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke will appeal a December Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany. The company will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where it will contest the decision to uphold Commerce's proposed quality code for sour service pressure vessel plate (see 2312210054). The court said Dillinger didn't make the "requisite showing to demonstrate that reconsideration is appropriate" after the court already rejected the claim (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT # 17-00158).
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 8 confidential order sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's findings in an antidumping duty proceeding on thermal paper from Germany. In a letter, Judge Gary Katzmann gave the litigants until Feb. 12 to review the confidential information in the opinion ahead of issuing the public version of the decision (Mantra Americas v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00632).
The Commerce Department on Feb. 12 found on remand, and under protest, that a German subsidy was not de jure specific to an exporter of forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany (BGH Edelstahl Siegen v. U.S., CIT # 21-00080).