The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 denied importer Lionshead Specialty Tire & Wheel's bid to amend a preliminary injunction that suspends liquidation of certain trailer wheel entries to not enjoin liquidation of wheel entries found by the Commerce Department to fall outside the scope of the AD/CVD orders on steel trailer wheels from China. The matter arose in Lionshead's suit against CBP's determination that various importers evaded the AD/CVD on Chinese trailer wheels. Judge Gary Katzmann said Lionshead failed to show "changed circumstances that warrant the modification of the preliminary injunction."
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A recent Court of International Trade decision reviewing the Commerce Department's differential pricing methodology under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is relevant to resolve a nearly identical claim in a separate case, the U.S. told the trade court in a notice of supplemental authority (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00025).
Supporting its July motion for judgment (see 2407160051), Belgium citrate exporter Citribel again asked the Court of International Trade Dec. 6 to find that the Commerce Department’s refusal to conduct quarterly conversion cost analyses is unreasonable (Citribel v. U.S., CIT # 24-00010).
The Commerce Department failed to justify its de facto specificity finding regarding the South Korean government's provision of electricity below cost in the 2021 review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Dec. 17. Judge Claire Kelly said Commerce didn't lay out a "rational basis" for grouping certain industries together and declaring that the selected industries received a disproportionate benefit from the program.
The Commerce Department failed to consider whether importer Hardware Resources' edge-glued wood boards were wood mouldings and millwork products when it included the goods in the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wood mouldings and millwork products from China, the Court of International Trade held on Dec. 16. In his first decision since joining the court, Judge Joseph Laroski said Commerce "ignored the threshold question of whether the product at issue is a wood moulding or millwork product."
The Court of International Trade upheld Dec. 17 the Commerce Department’s decision to swap back to the model match methodology it had used earlier in a review of antidumping duty orders on superabsorbent polymers from South Korea. The change meant administrative review mandatory respondent LG Chem’s AD rate jumped back up, from 17.64% to 26.05%.
The Court of International Trade in a pair of decisions sustained the Commerce Department's 33rd and 34th reviews of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Judge Stephen Vaden upheld Commerce's decision on remand to use neutral facts available against respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. in the 33rd review and the agency's use of adverse facts available against the same company in the 34th review. In the 33rd review, Commerce used neutral facts available after declaring that it can't conclude that the exporter has enough control over its suppliers to induce their cooperation. In the 34th review, the agency said Tainai was aware of its suppliers' prior non-cooperation, yet failed to undertake best efforts to induce their cooperation.
The Court of International Trade in a confidential decision sustained the results of the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on pentafluoroethane (R-125) from China. Judge Richard Eaton gave the parties until Dec. 31 to review the confidential information in the decision. The suit was launched by three Chinese exporters to claim that Commerce illegally valued the factors of production of the intermediate product for a refrigerant, anhydrous hydrofluoric acid, instead of valuing the acid's reported factors of production (see 2210270069) (Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00103).
Trade Court Rejects US Steel's Requests to Redact Parts of Decision on Section 232 Exclusion Denials
The Court of International Trade rejected U.S. Steel Corp.'s bid to redact portions of the court's recent decision remanding 31 Section 232 exclusion requests. Judge M. Miller Baker said a showing of good cause alone isn't enough to shield discovery materials after they have been introduced at trial or submitted "in connection with dispositive motions," noting the need for transparency in the judicial system and presumption of public access to court proceedings.