Opposing remand results by the Commerce Department (see 2410310052) -- which saw a company's antidumping duty rate rise from 31.7% to 37.2% in a review -- that company, mobile access equipment exporter Zhejiang Dingli Machinery, pushed back against Commerce’s use of a petitioner’s freight costs data. That data was composed of only price quotations, not actual transactions, the exporter argued (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00152).
Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann agreed March 3 to stay a case brought by rail coupler importer Amsted Rail Co. until a similar case concludes (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00268).
The U.S. on Feb. 28 defended the Commerce Department’s continued use on remand of German third-country comparison market data for an antidumping duty investigation on Dutch-origin mushrooms. It said Commerce had adopted a presumption that actually favored petitioner Giorgio Foods, despite Giorgio's opposition to the new results (Giorgio Foods v. United States, CIT # 23-00133).
The United States sought Feb. 28 a rehearing of the Court of International Trade’s decision regarding the classification of precut chordal, radial and web fabric pieces used in airplane brakes. The products’ importer, Honeywell, would avoid duties if the ruling stands (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 17-00256).
Petitioner Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers contested Feb. 24 two importers’ “slanderous” argument that the domestic rail coupler industry committed fraud that tainted an International Trade Commission injury investigation. Acknowledging the Association of American Railroads’ investigation of domestic producers’ sales of an unapproved knuckle model, it denied that any fraud had occurred (Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00157).
The Commerce Department placed an "undue emphasis on prefabrication" in a scope ruling on pencils in violation of its own regulations and case law, importer School Specialty said in a Feb. 27 brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to claims from the U.S. and petitioner Dixon Ticonderoga Co., School Specialty said Commerce's "unreasonable fixation on 'prefabrication'" led the agency to "misjudge the true complexity and importance of the processing that occurs in the Philippines" (School Specialty v. United States, CIT # 24-00098).
The Commerce Department complied with the Court of International Trade's previous order telling the agency to accept a submission from antidumping duty respondent Grupo Simec that was previously rejected for being untimely, the trade court held on Feb. 28. Judge Stephen Vaden said the agency properly followed the court's instruction and reduced the 66.7% adverse facts available duty rate on Grupo Simec to zero percent.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The International Trade Commission erred in finding "significant underselling" was the basis on which to determine that imports of frozen warmwater shrimp caused domestic industry harm and in finding the existence of only one domestic like product, trade group Indonesian Fishery Producers Processing and Marketing Association argued in a Feb. 26 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Indonesia Fishery Producers Processing and Marketing Association v. United States, CIT # 25-00035).
Exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret and petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition each contested an element of the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2020 review of the countervailing duty order on Turkish rebar. In comments to the Court of International Trade laying out their disagreements, Kaptan challenged Commerce's use of a report from Colliers International as a benchmark in assessing the benefit Kaptan derived from the provision of land for less than adequate remuneration, while the coalition challenged the agency's finding that exemptions from Turkey's Banking Insurance and Transaction Tax were neither de jure nor de facto specific (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 23-00131).