Domestic petitioner Catfish Farmers of America brought another case Aug. 19 against an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam -- this time, the review for the 2022-23 period (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 25-00156).
CBP failed to provide "substantial evidence" that importer Kana Energy Services Inc. imported Chinese-origin oil country tubular goods and arbitrarily applied adverse inferences in an antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion determination in an Enforce and Protect Act case on OCTG from Thailand, the importer told the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 14 complaint (Kana Energy Services v. United States, CIT # 25-00186).
Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif ruled Aug. 21 that Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving’s 2022 case challenging the cash deposit rate assigned to certain entries should have been brought to a binational panel under 1581(c), not to the trade court under 1581(i). He said that the “true nature” of the exporter’s case was a challenge to a 2019 antidumping duty review’s results. His analysis, he said, was identical to the analysis offered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when it upheld Reif’s dismissal of the exporter’s prior case (J.D. Irving v. United States, CIT # 22-00256).
Over opposition from the government, which said that the Court of International Trade didn't have the power to extend complaint deadlines, the trade court let honey exporters led by Ban Me Thout Honeybee file their complaint out of time in an order Aug. 15. The court said it would follow up its order with its reasoning in a later filing.
Importer Prysmian Cables and Systems again said Aug. 15 that the plain language of the executive order establishing Section 232 exclusion requests doesn’t allow the Commerce Department to base denials on national security considerations (Prysmian Cables and Systems USA v. United States, CIT # 24-00101).
Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly again remanded the Commerce Department’s de facto specificity finding regarding South Korea’s below-cost provision of off-peak electricity in a countervailing duty administrative review, saying the department still hasn’t rationally explained why it grouped three unrelated industries and found that they, together, disproportionately received the subsidy.
The Court of International Trade affirmed Aug. 11 the Commerce Department’s decision to, in an antidumping duty administrative review, reject Chinese solar cell exporter Yingli China’s separate rate application even though its U.S. sales were conducted through an affiliate, Yingli Green Energy Americas, with separate ownership.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 19 affirmed the Commerce Department’s decision to reject an exporter’s response to a separate rate questionnaire that had already been rescinded.
Importers' argument that the tariffs imposed using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act don't arise out of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. "strains the statutory text past the breaking point," the government argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
All the parties opposing the results of an antidumping duty review on Chinese activated carbon argued that Commerce failed to correct two mathematical mistakes in its review results despite timely ministerial error allegations (Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00262).