The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The government said in a May 20 status update that, for a case regarding an exporter’s adverse facts available rate after COVID-19 prevented in-person verification, the Commerce Department's remand redetermination will be out by Aug. 20 (PT. Asia Pacific Fibers v. U.S., CIT #22-00007).
Importer Valeo North America told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Commerce Department violated a "foundational principle of administrative law" in concluding the company's T-series aluminum sheet was covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders. Commerce failed to follow its "well-established legal framework" in making the scope decision, neglecting its duty as an administrative agency to provide coherent, ascertainable guidance so that regulated parties may anticipate how agencies enforce their rules and regulations," Valeo said (Valeo North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1189).
The Court of International Trade on May 20 entered stipulated judgment in a pair of customs suits brought by Home Depot U.S.A., lowering the duty rate on the retail giant's imported residential door knobs packaged with at least one deadbolt, from 5.7% to 3.9% (Home Depot U.S.A. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 14-00122, -00123).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said on May 20 that the Court of International Trade was wrong to impose a 50% threshold in determining whether demand for a processed agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties.
AD petitioners Bio-Lab, Innovative Water Care and Occidental Chemical Corporation merged their challenge to an antidumping duty review on chlorinated isocyanurates from China at the Court of International Trade with a similar challenge from Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. and Heze Huayi Chemical Co. (Bio-Lab, et al. v. United States, CIT # 24-00024) (Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00026).
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 20 ruled that the Court of International Trade was wrong to establish a 50% threshold when determining whether demand for an agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties. Judges Sharon Prost, William Bryson and Leonard Stark said the Commerce Department has significant leeway in determining whether substantial dependence exists. In the present case, which assessed subsidies to Spanish raw olive growers, the court affirmed Commerce's finding of substantial dependence, finding that errors in the agency's analysis of dependence were nonprejudicial to the affected Spanish ripe olive exporters.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on May 16 said that the Commerce Department lawfully excluded imports from non-market economy and export-subsidizing countries from the datasets it used when calculating input cost of production and market price under the major input and transactions disregarded rules.
Court of International Trade Chief Judge Mark Barnett appointed Cassidy Levy's Thomas Beline to be chair of the court's advisory committee, the court announced May 14. The committee's 20 members are lawyers from DOJ and in private practice. The group studies the court's rules of practice and procedures, and recommends improvements.