The Court of International Trade on March 26 ordered importer Lutron Electronics Co. to submit a supplemental brief further explaining its demand for redacted information in CBP's internal documents as part of a customs suit on the company's window shade machines. Judge Richard Eaton said Lutron must reconcile its motion to compel the documents with the holdings from Ford Motor Co. v. U.S., a 2010 U.S. Court of Federal Claims decision (Lutron Electronics Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00264).
A Turkish hot-rolled steel exporter March 18 defended its appeal over the currency that “controls” its products’ pricing against opposition by the U.S. and domestic petitioners, saying the petitioners had done their math wrong (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1158).
Two plaintiffs said in a March 18 filing that they are voluntarily dismissing their complaints in a case regarding a Commerce Department Enforce and Protect Act covered merchandise inquiry (see 2403200072), saying the issue they raised had become simply an "academic" question (Tube Forgings of America, Inc. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00231).
The Commerce Department released the final version of regulations on March 22 that will make various key changes in the administration of antidumping and countervailing duty regulations. The changes take effect April 24.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 20 granted Indian exporter Kumar Industries' motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal of an antidumping duty case. Kumar had appealed a decision sustaining the Commerce Department's assignment of a 13.61% adverse facts available AD rate to the exporter based on its "inadequate explanations" regarding one of its partners' ownership interests in two unnamed companies (see 2311270005). The rate came as part of the first review of the AD order on glycine from India, which found that Kumar prevented Commerce from conducting a proper affiliate analysis. Kumar withdrew the appeal last month, saying it "elected not to further pursue its appeal" (see 2402260033) (Kumar Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1293).
The Court of International Trade on March 20 upheld the International Trade Commission's decision not to cumulate Brazil's imports with the other countries included in the five-year sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on cold-rolled steel products from Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K.
Russian exporters PhosAgro, Apatit and Industrial Group Phosphorite will appeal a January Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's use of exporter PhosAgro's profit before tax number instead of its gross profit mark when calculating the company's phosphate mining rights benefit (see 2401190037). The exporter will take the case contesting the countervailing duty investigation on phosphate fertilizers from Russia to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In its decision, the trade court rejected PhosAgro's clam that its gross profit number "more accurately reflects the commercial reality" of its pricing process (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00117).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade on March 20 sustained the International Trade Commission's decision not to cumulate goods from Brazil with other countries that are part of the five-year sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on cold-rolled steel flat products from Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. Judge Gary Katzmann held that the commission's analysis didn't "engage in impermissibly 'circular' reasoning," the ITC's treatment of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs didn't impermissibly depart from past agency practice and the commission appropriately explained its decision not to cumulate Brazil's goods.
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public March 19 sent back the Commerce Department's decision to grant respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals a constructed export price offset in the antidumping duty investigation on granular polytetrafluorethylene resin from India, despite finding that the company failed to establish the amount and nature of the offset.