The partial revocation of an antidumping duty order for a Turkish company should have meant that company's export volumes were to be excluded from a sunset review of the AD order, Turkish steelmaker Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) argued in a July 14 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00351).
The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Thailand. Judge M. Miller Baker ruled that Commerce's reliance on unverified data from respondent Saffron Living Co. was illegal. While the government claimed that because Commerce was unable to verify Saffron's information it could use the exporter's information as facts otherwise available, Baker said this reading would "eviscerate the separate requirement" that Commerce verify all information relied on in making a final determination. The judge also sent back Commerce's refusal to apply either transactions disregarded or major input rules in light of evidence of Saffron's substantial affiliated-party transactions, dubbing the government's defense "anemic."
The Court of International Trade in a July 19 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision to raise the dumping margins in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duties on heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Mexico for mandatory respondents Maquilacero and Prolamsa from 0% to 3.48% and 2.11%, respectively. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce properly corrected ministerial errors alleged by petitioner Nucor Corp. in Maquilacero's rate by "removing the inadvertent zeros within the calculation programming" and dropping data from the time before the review period. The judge also sustained the agency's decision to fix its currency conversion mistakes made in calculating Prolamsa's rate.
The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion granted the government's motion to toss Target's case seeking to invalidate a CIT order instructing CBP reliquidate Target's metal-top iron tables at the 72.29% dumping rate instead of the original 9.47% rate. Judge Leo Gordon said that were Target to succeed, the result would "turn the clock back over 40 years" prior to the Customs Court Act's passage and "again call into question whether a party before the Court could obtain full and complete relief." Reversing the order as Target requests would "elevate the principle of finality" of liquidation "over the inherent power" of the trade court under Article III of the Constitution, the judge said.
Tire exporter Guizhou Tyre Co. and Guizhou Tyre Import and Export Co. will appeal a Court of International Trade decision upholidng the Commerce Department's finding that Guizhou failed to rebut the presumption of government control in the antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from China. Per the notice of appeal, the companies will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court said that despite Commerce's "inartful and internally-inconsistent approach" to answering whether a company majority-owned by a government entity could ever prove to be free of government control, the agency did enough here to show that Guizhou's largest shareholder was still run by the government (see 2305230060) (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00031).
The Court of International Trade in a July 17 order denied importer Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West)'s motion for stay of enforcement of judgment pending appeal in a customs dispute on the classification of frozen fruit mixtures. Judge Stephen Vaden said that in light of the U.S. claim that it will "take no action to reliquidate the entries at issue" until the importer's appeal is resolved, the court dismisses the motion as moot (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) v. U.S., CIT # 20-00131).
The Commerce Department shouldn't have rejected a questionnaire response in an antidumping duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Spain, considering that the agency relied on responses from the relevant company on remand, Siemens Gemesa Renewable Energy argued in its July 17 remand comments at the Court of International Trade (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. U.S., CIT # 21-00449).
Australian exporter BlueScope Steel is asking the Court of International Trade to overturn the International Trade Commission's decision to cumulate imports from Australia with shipments from other countries in its sunset review of the AD orders on the steel goods from Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, Turkey and the U.K. (BlueScope Steel v. U.S., CIT # 22-00353).
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative exceeded its authority in imposing the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China, covering a total of $320 billion worth of Chinese imports, plaintiff-appellants in the massive case against the duties, led by HTMX Industries and Jasco Products Co., argued in their opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Appealing the Court of International Trade's decision upholding the tariffs (see 2204010061), the companies said USTR did not have the authority to set the duties since the authority was not directly delegated by Congress, in violation of the "major questions doctrine" (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: