The Commerce Department properly excluded in-transit mattresses from the calculation of constructed export price (CEP) for respondent PT. Zinus Global Indonesia in the antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Indonesia, the Court of International Trade held on Feb. 18. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves also sustained Commerce's exclusion of the selling expenses of Zinus Indonesia's parent company Zinus Korea from the normal value calculation.
The Philippines opened a safeguard investigation on corrugating medium, a component of some cardboard types, on Feb. 13, the World Trade Organization announced. The Philippines said that interested parties should submit comments on the investigation to the Bureau of Import Services within five days of the publication of its notice, i.e., Feb. 18.
DOJ charged an Ohio-based subsidiary of a Russian aircraft parts supplier and three of its current and former employees with illegally exporting aircraft parts from the U.S. to Russia and Russian airline companies, DOJ announced.
The Government of India and exporter Balkrishna Industries replied to petitioner Titan Tire Corp.'s arguments against the Commerce Department's finding that Balkrishna didn't use or benefit from India's Advanced Authorization Scheme in the 2021 countervailing duty review on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from India. The Indian government said neither Commerce nor the petitioner had reason to doubt the fact that Balkrishna hadn't benefited from the program, while Balkrishna argued that the Indian government properly verified the information at issue (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00233).
The Supreme Court's holding in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated the concept of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes, "does not affect" the Court of International Trade's review of the differential pricing analysis, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 14 brief (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT # 23-00187).
Dicycles with electric motors and gyroscopic balancing technology, marketed and known as "hoverboards," are "chidren's cycles" and not "bicycles," importer GoLabs, doing business as GOTRAX, argued in a Feb. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade. As a result, the importer argued that the hoverboards fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9503.00.0090 and not subheading 8711.60.0050 as classified by CBP (GoLabs Inc. v. United States, CIT # 25-00003).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 13 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty case after ruling that the Commerce Department must establish a "particularly strong need to deter noncompliance" when setting adverse facts available rates that drastically differ from accuracy margins (see 2501070084). The appellate court rejected a 154.33% AD rate for steel nail exporter Oman Fasteners, which was set after the company missed a filing deadline by 16 minutes. The appellate court said Commerce should only look to impose massive AFA rates based on a record of unreasonable negligence or international misconduct (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
The Court of International Trade said in a text-only order that it "intends to consolidate" the nine cases challenging the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on aluminum extrusions from China and the nine cases challenging the countervailing duty investigation on the same product if no party objects by Feb. 19. All cases were assigned to Judge Mark Barnett last week. The judge said he set the Feb. 19 date so that only one administrative record needed to be filed in the consolidated action.
The U.S. defended its designation of Chinese lidar company Hesai Technology as a "Chinese military company" in a Feb. 12 brief at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, responding to a host of arguments from Hesai claiming that the designation wasn't backed by substantial evidence and committed various legal errors (Hesai Technology Co. v. United States, D.D.C. # 24-01381).