CIT Lets Alleged Transshipper Participate in EAPA Challenge; Two Other AD Decisions Released
The Court of International Trade allowed a company accused of transshipping aluminum extrusions from China in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation to participate in a case over the evasion finding, in an Oct. 7 order. Having previously ruled that the alleged transshipper, Kingtom Aluminio, could not intervene in the case for lack of a legally protectable interest in the case, Judge Richard Eaton ruled that Kingtom's contractual arrangements provide an interest in the transaction at issue that has a direct relationship to the litigation and the existing parties don't adequately represent Kingtom's interests.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
CIT also ruled that the Commerce Department found proper industry support before launching antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on quartz surface products from India, in an Oct. 7 order. M S International raised the industry support objection, arguing that the term "producer" should include the totality of the industry, including fabricators. Since many QSP fabricators opposed the AD/CVD investigations, Commerce did not have the appropriate level of industry support to start the investigations, MSI argued. The court instead found that Commerce can define "producers" in the industry support provision to mean entities that have a stake in the industry.
In another order, the CIT found that Lyke Industrial Tool's cupwheels are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from China. Judge Richard Goldberg had remanded the case once before, ordering the Commerce Department to consider the "(k)(2)" factors when determining if the cupwheels are within the scope of the AD order. After conducting this analysis -- which included comparing cupwheels and diamond sawblades' physical characteristics, end uses, expectations of the purchaser and ways the goods are advertised -- Commerce still decided to exclude the cupwheels from the AD order.