Plaintiffs in three similar cases challenging CBP’s denial of delinquency interest on collected antidumping and countervailing duties under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to three notices of appeal filed Aug. 5. The Court of International Trade ruled in June that CBP properly denied the payments, relying on CBP’s interpretation of how to administer CDSOA and define how interest is earned on AD/CVD given ambiguities in the statute pertaining to delinquency interest (see 2206160074). Among the appellants are Monterey Mushrooms, Hilex Poly and American Drew.
The Commerce Department erred in its calculations when determining the cost of honey during an antidumping duty investigation, AD duty petitioners American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association said in an August 5 complaint at the Court of International Trade (American Honey Producers Association v. United States, CIT #22-00195).
The Commerce Department made multiple errors in its treatment of Grupo Simec during an antidumping duty review on steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from Mexico, including the incorrect application of adverse facts available to respondent Simec, Simec said in an Aug. 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Grupo Simec, et. al. v. United States, CIT #22-00202).
The Commerce Department erred in its calculations of production costs during an antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Argentina, exporter Nexco said in an August 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Nexco, S.A. v. U.S., CIT #22-00203).
The Court of International Trade will close out a controversial case involving allegations of antidumping and countervailing duty evasion by a Dominican exporter in that Dominican exporter’s favor, granting on Aug. 8 a motion to enter judgment sustaining CBP’s reversal of an evasion finding for Kingtom Aluminio in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation. Kingtom, several importers and the U.S. government had filed a joint motion requesting CBP’s remand results be sustained (see 2206230037).
The Court of International Trade issued a decision Aug. 8 remanding surrogate value calculations in an antidumping duty review on activated carbon from China to the Commerce Department for reconsideration or explanation. While CIT sustained five of the seven surrogate selections at issue in the case, it found the agency failed to explain its surrogate value selection of a dataset for carbonized material and its pick of a company for determining surrogate financial ratios.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 sustained the Commerce’s Department’s third remand results in an case that revolved around the constructed value calculation in an antidumping duty administrative review on steel nails from Oman. The trade court found Commerce justified its switch on remand between surrogate companies, despite calls from the exporter under review to use a different company.
While plaintiffs in a solar cell antidumping review case were satisfied with the Commerce Department's switch from adverse facts available and how it values silver paste on remand, they still contest the agency's positions on how to value backsheets and ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) using surrogate data. In comments to the Court of International Trade, the plaintiffs, led by Risen Energy, argued the Commerce's bid to further defend its valuation of backsheet and EVA inputs is unsupported by substantial evidence (Risen Energy v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-03743).
Offroad utility vehicles should be classified as passenger rather than cargo transporters, importer MTD said in an Aug. 5 complaint to the Court of International Trade (MTD Consumer Group Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00233).
The Department of Commerce erred in finding that critical circumstances existed in an antidumping and countervailing duty investigation concerning raw honey from Vietnam, argued the National Honey Packers and Dealers Association in an Aug. 5 complaint to the Court of International Trade (National Honey Packers & Dealers Association v. U.S., CIT #22-00194, -00195).