International trade attorney Kanzanira Thorington has moved from WilmerHale to King & Spalding, according to her LinkedIn page. Thorington initially joined WilmerHale in 2022 after clerking at the Court of International Trade. She joins King & Spalding in Washington as an associate.
The U.S. on March 18 opposed a motion to consolidate an exporter’s two Court of International Trade cases contesting two Commerce Department scope rulings. Those rulings found the exporter’s calcium glycinate was covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders on glycine from India, Japan, Thailand and China (Deer Park Glycine, LLC v. U.S., CIT #s 23-00238, 24-00016).
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).
A South Korean exporter of certain corrosion-resistant steel products filed another complaint March 19 in the Court of International Trade saying that a 2014 to 2018 debt-to-equity restructuring led by the Korean government assisted its previous owners, not its current ones (KG Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00056).
The U.S. defended the Commerce Department before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 18 regarding a number of decisions it made during its 13th administrative review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China, including its selection of two Malaysian exporters as surrogates over a respondent’s opposition (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2413).
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.
An exporter argued March 6 to the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department failed to justify allocating one of the exporter’s expenses across the entire period of review instead of on a more specific monthly basis. The department is required to use an allocation method that is as specific as possible, it said (Sahamitr Pressure Container PLC v. U.S., CIT # 22-0107).
In a March 18 brief supporting a Jan. 24 motion to dismiss (see 2401230040), the U.S. again argued in a case involving the antidumping and countervailing duty pause on Southeast Asian solar panels that the Court of International Trade lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) because it “is, or could have been” available under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (Auxin Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00274).