The International Trade Commission asked the Court of International Trade to temporarily redact its decision sustaining an injury determination on mattresses since the commission believes there to be business proprietary information in the opinion that may need to be redacted (CVB v. United States, CIT # 21-00288).
CBP can't extend liquidation without giving a reason, a solar panel company argued at the Court of International Trade Dec. 14 (Greentech Energy Solutions v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00118.)
The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's use of total adverse facts available against antidumping respondent Saffron Living Co. after the company withdrew from the case on remand. Sustaining the 760% AD rate against the company in the investigation on mattresses from Thailand, Judge M. Miller Baker said the remand results are upheld since no remaining party contests the mark. The case was on remand so Commerce could attempt to verify data from Saffron, though this became impossible after Saffron withdrew from the proceeding.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 21 sustained the Commerce Department's continued rejection of exporter AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's proposed quality code for sour service pressure vessel plate. Upholding Commerce's fourth remand results in the antidumping duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany, Judge Leo Gordon said Dillinger didn't make the "requisite showing to demonstrate that reconsideration is appropriate here" after the court already rejected the claim.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 21 sustained the Commerce Department's fourth remand results in a case on an antidumping investigation into carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany. Judge Leo Gordon noted that the court already rejected exporter AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's argument that Commerce improperly rejected the company's proposed quality code for sour service pressure vessel plate, adding that Dillinger didn't properly show reconsideration of the issue is "appropriate." The judge also rejected petitioner Nucor's challenge to the adjustment to the model match methodology to include a separate quality code for sour transport plate in calculating Dillinger's margin.
Exporter Kumar Industries will appeal a November Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's assignment of a 13.61% adverse facts available dumping rate to the exporter based on its "inadequate explanations" regarding one of its partners ownership interests in two unnamed companies (see 2311270005). In the decision, the court sustained the rate, issued as part of the first antidumping duty review on glycine from India, finding that Kumar prevented Commerce from conducting a proper affiliate analysis (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00622).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 upheld the Commerce Department's decision to revert to the calculation of a previously used land benchmark as part of a countervailing duty review. Judge Jane Restani said that since no parties contest the move, the court will sustain the agency's third remand results.
A paint sprayer company argued that the parts of its spray nozzles that control the flow of liquid paint are heat sinks, and are excluded from an antidumping duty order on aluminum extrusions from China (Wagner Spray Tech Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00241).
The Commerce Department made no changes to the final results of its countervailing duty administrative review on exporters of South Korean carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate, after a second remand in a case challenging the results of the 2018 review (Nucor Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 21-00182).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 18 text-only order granted the government's request for 60 more days to file their opening brief in a case on whether the statute of limitations had passed on an action seeking to collect on a customs bond from surety firm American Home Assurance Co. (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., Fed. Cir. # 24-1069).