Mandatory antidumping duty respondent Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co., along with 25 plywood exporters, urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to uphold the Court of International Trade's decision giving Chengen and the separate rate respondents a zero percent dumping margin in the AD investigation on hardwood plywood from China (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1258).
Because no party now opposes the results of a remanded scope ruling on engines with horizontal crankshafts from China, the government asked the Court of International Trade on July 18 to sustain the ruling (Zhejiang Amerisun Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00011).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential decision July 17 sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on preserved mushrooms from the Netherlands. Judge M. Miller Baker said he will make the decision public on July 25. U.S. mushroom producer Giorgio Foods contested Commerce's pick of Germany as the third-country comparison market and its decision not to use adverse facts available against respondent Prochamp (see 2307240018) (Giorgio Foods v. U.S., CIT # 23-00133).
The Court of International Trade on July 18 sent back the Commerce Department's decision to include importer Elysium Tile's composite tile within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tile from China. Judge Jane Restani said the "complexity of Elysium's processes" shows that the company's tile underwent more than "minor processing," which would have kept the goods in the orders' scope.
An importer arguing that its Chinese-origin garlic that is boiled, then frozen shouldn’t be subject to antidumping duties on fresh garlic from China filed a motion for judgment in the Court of International Trade on July 15 (Export Packers Company Limited v. U.S., CIT # 24-00061).
The Commerce Department improperly decided that it can use Romania as the primary surrogate in the 2021-22 antidumping duty review on chlorinated isocyanurates from China after Romania wasn't submitted as a potential surrogate prior to the surrogate country comment deadline, exporters Heze Huayi Chemical Co. and Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. argued (Bio-Lab v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00024).
Ildico, importer of luxury Richard Mille watches, told the Court of International Trade that the U.S. is seeking to "distract from the legal issue" in the case by claiming that Ildico allegedly can't prove the characteristics of the watches (Ildico v. United States, CIT # 18-00136).
The Court of International Trade properly rejected the Commerce Department's decision to set the separate rate respondents' antidumping duty margin by averaging a zero percent rate and an adverse facts available rate, exporter Zhejiang Dehua TB Import & Export Co. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Filing a reply brief July 17, the exporter said Commerce failed to support its use of the averaged rates and that the agency ultimately arrived at the correct determination: a zero percent margin for the separate rate companies (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1258).
The Court of International Trade on July 18 remanded the Commerce Department's decision to include Elysium Tiles' composite tile within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tile from China. Judge Jane Restani said the evidence doesn't show that Elysium's processing of its tile was so "minor" as to keep its goods within the scope of the orders. The judge said the "complexity of Elysium's processes exceeds the complexity of the processes described in the scope language." The court also held that Commerce provided an insufficient summary of an ex parte trip it took to U.S. tile maker Florida Tile's production facilities.
Hoverboards are toys, not transportation devices, an importer argued in a motion for judgment filed July 12 in one of a couple of identical classification disputes it has brought in recent years (see 2110150056 and 2112100053) (3BTech v. U.S., CIT # 21-00026).