The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 24 order granted the U.S. motion to enter an amended protective order in Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp.'s case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The order dismissed Ninestar's motion to compel the unredacted administrative record as moot, while clarifying that the order was issued "without prejudice to the parties' rights to petition the court to further modify the terms of the APO" or their right to challenge the designation of materials as confidential under the APO (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The Commerce Department, on remand at the Court of International Trade, switched to using Brazilian surrogate value information to value antidumping duty respondent Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co.'s non-oak log inputs. Changing course as part of the 2019-20 AD review of multilayered wood flooring from China, Commerce switched to using Brazilian data, the primary surrogate nation, after the trade court rejected its initial use of Malaysian data for the factors of production (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00190).
A horizontal lawnmower engine shouldn't have been included under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on vertical shaft engines between 99cc and up to 225cc from China in a Commerce Department scope ruling because it was "clearly excluded" by the scope language, Zhejiang Amerisun Technology said in an Oct. 24 brief at the Court of International Trade (Zhejiang Amerisun Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00011).
The Commerce Department improperly rescinded the antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on wood moldings and millwork products from China as to exporters China Cornici Co. and RaoPing HongRong Handicrafts Co., the two companies argued in a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade (China Cornici Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00216, -00217).
The Commerce Department failed to link its finding of the Chinese government's control over exporter Pirelli Tyre Co.'s management to the company's export activities, Pirelli told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Oct. 24 opening brief. The agency "adopted an unlawful interpretation and application of the rebuttable presumption" of government control as part of the 2017-18 antidumping duty review of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, the brief said (Pirelli Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2266).
The Commerce Department flipped its position on remand to find that exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. didn't use China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, though it did continue to find that the exporter benefited from the provision of caustic soda and synthetic yarn for less than adequate remuneration (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00402).
The Commerce Department's decision to initiate an antidumping duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina was based on data from an "anomalous period" in 2020 with "unprecedented market conditions" that were unrepresentative of the OCTG market, plaintiffs led by Tenaris Bay City said in an Oct. 20 support motion at the Court of International Trade (Tenaris Bay City, et al. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00343).
Imported ether glycol used in the manufacture of high-performance polyurethane elastomers is a synthetic wax and properly classified as such rather than as an epoxy resin, importer Gantrade said in its Oct. 23 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Gantrade v. U.S., CIT # 21-00551).
The government hasn't justified its decision to keep a vast majority of the information confidential as part of Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp.'s case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, Ninestar argued. Filing its opposition to the U.S.'s motion to enter an amended protective order on Oct. 23 at the Court of International Trade, the exporter said the motion would "give the Government essentially unreviewable discretion to seal information, placing it beyond Ninestar's review" and is just "another bid for delay and distraction" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
A finding of evasion against Skyview Cabinet USA was arbitrary and capricious because CBP failed to establish that the subject wooden cabinets and vanities were covered merchandise at the time they were made and because CBP failed to follow Enforce and Protect Act procedures when it applied adverse inferences, Skyview said in its Oct. 23 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Skyview Cabinet USA v. U.S., Masterbrand Cabinets Inc., Fed. Cir. # 23-2318).