The Court of International Trade on Feb. 26 issued an amended decision in a customs case on the tariff classification of five categories of chrome-plated plastic automobile parts after initially deciding the case Dec. 18. The new decision adds a discussion of axle covers, the fifth category of goods, finding them to fall under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8708 pursuant to General Rule of Interpretation 1.
Indian exporter Kumar Industries withdrew its appeal of an antidumping duty case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 23. The company said that it "has elected not to further pursue its appeal," noting that the U.S. consented to the withdrawal (Kumar Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1293).
Iceland's Einar Gunnarsson, chair of the fisheries subsidies talks at the World Trade Organization, circulated a draft text on the second fisheries negotiations on Feb. 16, the WTO announced. The text covered subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing and was released in the run-up to the 13th Ministerial Conference, which is set to be held Feb. 26-29.
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 22 again remanded the Commerce Department's use of total adverse facts available against exporter Meihua and its affiliate in an antidumping duty review on xanthan gum from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Meihua properly submitted information on the duties it paid, and its submission of its data 56 days before the antidumping review's preliminary results wasn't "untimely."
Exporter Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. and importer C&U Americas brought a suit to the Court of International Trade on Feb. 20 challenging the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. The five-count complaint alleges a host of errors in the review, including on Commerce's use of partial adverse facts available (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00025).
An aluminum foil importer argued Feb. 20 that the Commerce Department was wrong to find that a South Korean exporter circumvented antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese aluminum because the underlying Chinese inputs underwent “significant” processing (Hanon Systems Alabama Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00013).
A World Trade Organization dispute panel on Feb. 20 found a U.S. attempt to revisit part of its countervailing duty laws as they pertain to subsidies on agricultural products violated the nation's WTO commitments. The panel said the U.S. failed to implement the findings of a previous dispute panel ruling, which said these same laws cut against the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in relation to a subsidy finding on ripe olives from Spain.
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 22 remanded the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves rejected the agency's continued use of total adverse facts available against exporters Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) and Xinjiang Meihua Amino Acid Co., finding that the companies submitted evidence on the amount of duties it paid as requested by Commerce. Choe-Groves also said the data, submitted 56 days before the review's preliminary results, wasn't untimely. The court also faulted Commerce for continuing to not conduct a collapsing analysis of exporter Deosen Biochemical, ruling that the company wasn't given adequate notice that it could request a new collapsing analysis.
An antidumping duty petitioner said Feb. 17 that the Commerce Department accidentally included offsets for scrap not produced during the investigation period in its calculation of an exporter's normal value in an administrative review of the antidumping duty orders on Greek pipe (The American Line Pipe Producers Trade Association Committee v. U.S., CIT # 24-00012).
Again remanding the Commerce Department’s final affirmative determination in mattress exporter Zinus Indonesia's antidumping duty case, the Court of International Trade said that facts otherwise available weren't warranted in Commerce's construction of the exporter’s export price and that the department needed to consider new evidence in constructing its selling expenses.