The Commerce Department still hasn't proven that Hyundai received a subsidy in the form of a “direct transfer of funds” from the South Korean government due to the country’s cap and trade program, the exporter said Feb. 5 in comments on the department’s remand results (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S. , CIT # 22-00170).
Importers seeking reclassification of their 3D-printing pens as toys rather than machinery consolidated their cases Feb. 5 at the Court of International Trade (Quantified Operations Limited v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00178).
An importer said Feb. 7 that CBP wrongfully prevented a weight loss dietary supplement from entering the U.S. (Unichem Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 24-00033).
Importer Vanguard National Trailer Corp. challenged CBP's finding that the company evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese truck wheels, filing a complaint on Feb. 6 at the Court of International Trade. The importer said CBP improperly assessed AD/CVD on its entries from before May 12, 2021 -- the date on which the Commerce Department started a scope inquiry on whether Vanguard's truck wheels, imported from Thai manufacturer Asia Wheel, were covered by the AD/CVD orders (Vanguard National Trailer Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00034).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 8 sustained the Commerce Department's finding that Chinese wood flooring exporter Fusong Jinlong Group was eligible for a separate rate despite its refusal due to the COVID-19 pandemic to be a mandatory respondent in a 2018-2019 AD review. However, the court allowed Commerce's application of AFA to the exporter, leaving the exporter's AD at the China-wide 85.13% while raising the review's non-individually reviewed respondents' rate from zero to 42.57%. The department made the change under protest after the court found it was treating similarly situated entities differently and hadn’t addressed Jinlong’s separate rate certification on the merits.
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 7 upheld CBP's decision to reverse its finding that importer Norca Industries Co. and International Piping & Procurement Group evaded the antidumping duty order on pipe fittings from China. The negative evasion finding came after CBP made a covered merchandise referral to the Commerce Department on remand. The referral found that the importers' carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings were outside the order's scope.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Seven plywood importers will not participate in the appeal of a case on the antidumping duty investigation of hardwood plywood from China after participating at the Court of International Trade. The companies -- Canusa Wood Products, Concannon Corp., Fabuwood Cabinetry Corp., Holland Southwest International, Liberty Woods International, Northwest Hardwood and USPly -- told the court of their decision in a statement last week (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1258)
A petitioner told the court Feb. 2 that an exporter had filed its remand comments late because it replied in the response time allocated for defendant-intervenors, but had argued in its secondary capacity as a plaintiff. The exporter disagreed, saying it had been “clearly identified” as a defendant-intervenor by the court (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00077).
The Commerce Department misidentified two South Korean government programs as countervailable subsidies, including one that it had previously deemed too unspecific, a Korean steel exporter said Feb. 5 at the Court of International Trade (POSCO v. U.S., CIT # 24-00006).