Exporter Nanjing Kaylang's cabinets made from processed phragmite, a type of reed, were reasonably found by the Commerce Department to fall under antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets from China, Court of International Trade Judge Thomas Aquilino ruled Feb. 21.
The Commerce Department properly included Asia Wheel Co.'s trailer wheels made of Chinese rims and Thai discs in the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on steel trailer wheels from China, the Court of International Trade held in a pair of nearly identical decisions. Judge Gary Katzmann said that Commerce didn't illegally expand the scope of the orders since the agency left open the possibility in the original AD/CVD investigations to discuss mixed-origin wheels in a later scope ruling.
Ashley Akers, former senior trial counsel at DOJ, has joined Holland & Knight as senior counsel, Akers announced on LinkedIn. Akers served at DOJ for over seven years, joining initially as a trial attorney then moving to senior trial counsel in 2024. At DOJ, Akers worked on a number of trade remedies cases at the Court of International Trade and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 20 consolidated nine cases challenging the Commerce Department's scope determination in the antidumping duty investigation on aluminum extrusions from China and nine cases challenging the scope determination in the countervailing duty investigation on the same products. The court also stayed the consolidated cases pending the trade court's first decision in a separate case on the International Trade Commission's injury determination on the products (Dorman Products v. United States, CIT #s 24-00236, -00237).
Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio asked the Court of International Trade to expedite its challenge to CBP's finding that the company makes aluminum extrusions using forced labor, arguing that there's a "very real possibility" the company will have to "cease operations and file for bankruptcy as a result of" the forced labor finding (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 20 allowed patent attorney Andrew Dhuey to appear as amicus curiae to defend Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden's decision rejecting an unopposed motion to redact certain confidential information from the merits decision on an antidumping duty and countervailing duty injury determination. CAFC Judge Leonard Stark took up Dhuey on his offer, appointing him "in support" of the trade court's decision (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).
After the Court of International Trade denied hoverboard importer 3BTect’s motion to strike three expert reports from the record of its classification dispute, the importer switched Feb. 14 to targeting the factual basis of the government’s cross-motion for judgment in a 72-page response brief (3BTech v. United States, CIT # 21-00026).
The Court of International Trade in a pair of nearly-identical decisions sustained the Commerce Department's scope ruling that certain trailer wheels made by Asia Wheel Co. fall within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel trailer wheels from China. The wheels are made in Thailand using discs from China and rims made in Thailand. Judge Gary Katzmann held that Commerce didn't unlawfully expand the scope of the orders, since the agency said when it imposed the orders that wheels made of mixed-origin rims and discs could be subject to a scope ruling in the future. The judge also held that Commerce's finding that Asia Wheel's products weren't "substantially transformed" in Thailand was properly supported.
The Court of International Trade ruled Feb. 21 that exporter Nanjing Kaylang's phragmite cabinets fell under antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wood cabinets from China. CIT Judge Thomas Aquilino said the processing of phragmite was sufficiently similar to wood, and the term “engineered wood products” was ambiguous enough, for a Commerce Department scope ruling that reached the same result to be reasonable (Nanjing Kaylang Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00045).