The U.S. on April 5 rejected an importer’s claim that, based on the legislation governing changed circumstances reviews, the Commerce Department may not begin any new antidumping or countervailing duty investigations on a product within two years of the prior one (Wabtec Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00160, -00161).
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
The Court of International Trade on April 8 upheld CBP's decision on remand that four importers didn't evade the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. Judge Mark Barnett said the decision will be upheld because because there's "no substantive challenge" to the remand.
In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. and defendant-appellee petitioners fought back against an importer’s opening brief that argued a Commerce Department scope ruling “would overturn more than 10 years of black-letter law” (Valeo North America v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1189).
The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 5 that the Commerce Department properly countervailed the Port of Incheon program in South Korea. Filing a response to respondent Hyundai Steel Co., the government said that key Federal Circuit precedent -- AK Steel Corp. v. U.S. -- controls in this instance in that the agency wasn't required to consider Hyundai's construction costs in building the port (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1100).
The Court of International Trade on April 8 referred LE Commodities' challenge to 14 denied requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to mediation before Judge Leo Gordon. The order was penned by Judge M. Miller Baker, who gave the parties until July 8 to complete the mediation, unless Gordon "recommends an extension" (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT # 22-00245).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 8 dismissed importer Rimco's challenge of antidumping and countervailing duties on its steel wheel entries, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade granted importer Blockstream Services USA's bid to set aside the court's dismissal of the company's customs suit on the classification of its cryptocurrency miners. The suit was dismissed for failure to prosecute after Blockstream didn't move to extend the time for the case to remain on the customs case management calendar (see 2404030045). Blockstream had apologized to the court for the calendaring error that led to the dismissal. Judge Gary Katzmann granted the motion, and the case will remain on the case management calendar through March 31, 2026 (Blockstream Services USA v. United States, CIT # 22-00101).
The Court of International Trade on April 8 sustained CBP's decision on remand to find that four importers didn't evade the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. CBP reversed course on its remand decision after the Commerce Department's scope referral decision finding the companies' products subject to the orders was changed in a separate CIT case. Judge Mark Barnett said the case should be sustained after no parties contested the reversed evasion finding.
Judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit questioned the Commerce Department's decision to pull forward a 78% adverse facts available rate from a prior antidumping duty review in the 2018-19 AD review on steel nails from Taiwan, but not the lower rate for the non-individually examined respondents (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2128).