The Court of International Trade on April 17 sent back the Commerce Department's decision to use the 2018-19 investigation period for its antidumping investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico. The investigation was resumed after being suspended multiple times since 1995, wrote Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, saying that the statute and congressional intent are clear that Commerce, when resuming a suspended investigation, must continue with the original investigation period. The judge made this decision after first finding that U.S. grower Red Sun Farms requested the continuation of the investigation when it made its request in 2019. Choe-Groves said that U.S. companies can make new requests for the continuation of suspended investigations after each suspension.
A Russian pipe exporter contested the International Trade Commission's redetermination upon remand that Russian pipe imports into the U.S. were injuring domestic industry (see 2402120048). It said the ITC didn’t make any changes to its analysis in the redetermination, contrary to an order by the Court of International Trade (PAO TMK v. U.S., CIT # 21-00532).
Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp. will submit a delisting petition with the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force to get off the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the company told the Court of International Trade in an April 12 status report (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The Court of International Trade on April 8 sent back the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against exporter Garg Tube in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India. Judge Claire Kelly instructed Commerce to invoke the specific statutory provision on which it relies on remand and explain either how the use of AFA promotes accuracy or how Garg Tube failed to respond to the best of its ability. The judge also rejected Garg Tube's challenge to Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test to root out "masked" dumping due to the company's failure to raise the issue administratively.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
In a third amended scheduling order, the Court of International Trade set a new Aug. 13 deadline for motions in a case that has been ongoing since 2022. The extension follows an amended complaint filed April 1 in which plaintiff Zoetis Services said that CBP had classified a “nearly identical” product to its own under a Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading it preferred (Zoetis Services LLC v. U.S., CIT #22-00056).
A petitioner in a review of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain chassis and subassemblies from China filed a consent motion April 10 to intervene in a case challenging that review brought by importer Pitts Enterprises. The Coalition of American Chassis Manufacturers said it intends to join the case on the side of Pitts to litigate the Commerce Department’s interpretation of the orders’ language (Pitts Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00030).
The U.S. and steel importer AM/NS Calvert announced in a joint report April 12 that they are still in the process of seeking settlement in a case regarding the Commerce Department’s denial of the importer’s Section 232 tariff exclusion requests (AM/NS Calvert v. U.S., CIT # 21-00005).
A domestic petitioner said April 11 that it supports the Commerce Department’s result after a second remand that an Indonesian biodiesel exporter’s antidumping and countervailing duties hadn’t overlapped to create a double remedy -- a conclusion the department reached after it reluctantly conducted a court-ordered pass-through analysis (see 2403130049). The exporter also announced earlier that it wouldn't be submitting comments in opposition (Wilmar Trading PTE Ltd. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 18-00121).
The U.S. and a defendant-intervenor defended the Commerce Department’s use of adverse facts available in another Export Buyers’ Credit Program case April 10 before the Court of International Trade. A Chinese solar cell exporter was slapped with the AFA after one of its customers refused to provide a non-use certificate (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00153).