No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 31 ordered the clerk of the Court of International Trade to transfer samples of pipe conduit to the appellate court in a customs case on importer Shamrock Building Materials' electrical conduit entries. In the case, the trade court said the conduits cannot insulate the base metal from the electrical current or the heat in the wire it surrounds, barring classification under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8547. Shamrock is now arguing at the Federal Circuit that the heading, which covers "electric conduit tubing lined with insulating material," is the proper home for the goods (see 2309250037). The appellate court said the pipe conduit samples "may aid the court in its understanding of the issues in this case" (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1648).
Antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi added supplemental authorities to its case regarding the antidumping duty review on aluminum foil from Turkey, it said in its Oct. 30 notice at the Court of International Trade (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00616).
The Commerce Department illegally deducted Section 301 China tariff duties from exporter Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co.'s U.S. price in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China, Fufeng said in its Oct. 30 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. In addition, Fufeng argued that Commerce unlawfully valued the company's energy factors of productions and coal classifications, which Fufeng said skewed the dumping margins (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00068).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 30 order granted the U.S. motion to treat certain parts of the record as "highly sensitive documents" in a case on exporter Ninestar Corp.'s addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Judge Gary Katzmann agreed to the request following a dispute on whether to allow the government to amend the protective order in the suit. The government argued that the documents, if revealed, could "'pose a danger of physical harm to certain persons" (see 2310300041) (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
After finding it was inappropriate to calculate Universal Tube and Plastic Industries’ dumping margin by comparing the selling prices of U.S. and home market sales made in different quarters, Commerce "did exactly that" in its differential pricing analysis, said Universal, THL Tube and Pipe Industries and KHK Scaffolding and Formwork in their Oct. 26 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Comparing Universal’s selling prices in different quarters of the review period was unlawful because it had separately determined that selling price comparisons of Universal’s sales across quarters was impermissible, said Universal in its request to remand the issue back to Commerce (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00113).
The Commerce Department's analysis of whether a company from a non-market economy has rebutted the presumption of government control was improperly applied to exporters that are minority-owned by state-owned enterprises, exporters Aeolus Tyre Co. and Guizhou Tyre Co. said in a pair of opening briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Both companies said Commerce instead should have considered all four factors relating to the presumption of foreign state control and not just the "truncated analysis" of whether potential control over export activities via control of management selection was in play (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).
The Commerce Department properly calculated the manufacturing overhead ratio in an antidumping duty review because the agency complied with the Court of International Trade's remand order regarding the calculation, the trade court said in an Oct. 30 opinion. Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce legally used the amount for indirect production expenses in the ratio's numerator while stating its reasons for subtracting energy costs from this number and placing them in the denominator, as instructed.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade to treat "certain portions of the administrative record as highly sensitive documents" in a case against Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp.'s addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Following a spat on whether to allow the government to amend the protective order in the suit, the U.S. is now asking for certain protections for information on the record since, if revealed, the information "could pose a danger of physical harm to certain persons" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).