Responding to an exporter’s comments on remand results (see 2412230074), the government said Feb. 3 that the Commerce Department fully complied with a second remand order by the Court of International Trade (see 2406270043). The trade court had ordered it to further explain its selection of a second mandatory respondent in a separate rate review on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).
A domestic steel trade group brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade Feb. 7 alleging that a mandatory respondent in a tire antidumping duty review “was attempting to pass off [a non-market economy] entity as a market-economy entity” and should have been hit with adverse facts available (United Steel, Paper and Forestry International Union v. United States, CIT # 25-00004).
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit questioned counsel for both antidumping respondent Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi and the government on the Commerce Department's decision to use Turkish lira to value Habas' home-market sales in the 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled steel flat products from Turkey. Judges Kimberly Moore, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham questioned Habas' claim that U.S. dollars should have been used because its home market price negotiations, invoices and records all used U.S. dollars (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1158).
The Commerce Department reasonably picked the financial statements of San Shing Fastech Corp. to calculate the constructed value profit and indirect selling expenses of respondent Your Standing International in a review of the antidumping duty order on nails from Taiwan, the Court of International Trade held in a Feb. 7 decision. Judge Claire Kelly said the agency appropriately found that San Shing makes "comparable merchandise," has contemporaneous financial statements and sells over 70% of its products to markets outside the U.S.
The Court of International Trade CM/ECF system will undergo maintenance March 8 from 8 a.m. to noon ET, the court announced. The system will be unavailable during this time.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Petitioner CP Kelco U.S. withdrew as a defendant-intervenor in an Enforce and Protect Act evasion case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a Feb. 6 motion. The appellate court held oral argument in the case in October 2024, indicating that the plaintiff, xanthan gum importer All One God Faith, doing business as Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, likely would not succeed in reversing the Court of International Trade's dismissal of the case, since its entries have all been liquidated (see 2410160048). Counsel for CP Kelco didn't respond to request for comment (All One God Faith v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).
The U.S. government fully supported the Commerce Department's decision not to use adverse facts available against exporter Can Tho Import Export Seafood Joint Stock Co. in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, the exporter argued in a Feb. 5 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Can Tho Import Export said Commerce properly found that the respondent fully cooperated in the review and that Commerce correctly rejected the petitioner's allegation of a ministerial error (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 24-00082).
Rail coupler importer Strato Feb. 1 filed a motion for remand for reconsideration of an injury investigation, alleging “newly emerged evidence of fraud perpetuated by the domestic industry” (Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00157).
A Wisconsin man filed a pro se lawsuit at the Court of International Trade challenging the president's ability to impose tariffs, arguing that any attempt by the president to levy import duties represents an improper delegation of power under the U.S. Constitution. The individual, Gary Barnes, said imposing tariffs "is not within the jurisdiction of the President's duties," noting that the power to levy tariffs rests solely with Congress (Gary L Barnes v. United States President Donald Trump, CIT # 25-00043).