The U.S. opposed Turkish exporter Habas Sinai's motions to intervene as an intervenor in an antidumping case and for an injunction on the liquidation of its entries, arguing that Habas' entries are already liquidated and that the company offers no "good cause" for its delay for timely seeking an injunction from the court (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 24-00018).

The Commerce Department chose the wrong primary surrogate country in its antidumping duty review on aluminum foil from China, multiple exporters argued in a motion for judgment July 29. The department chose Romania, citing minor factors of production and slightly more contemporaneous data, over Malaysia and Bulgaria, which were more accurate, they claimed (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00264).

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 1 reassigned to Judge Gary Katzmann from Judge Timothy Stanceu two related antidumping duty scope cases regarding steel truck wheels from China. The lead plaintiffs in the proceedings are Asia Wheel Co. and Vanguard National Trailer Corp., which filed the cases to challenge the Commerce Department's "substantial transformation" analysis regarding steel truck wheels made in Thailand with either Chinese-origin rims or discs (see 2407020049). The court didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the switch (Asia Wheel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00143) (Vanguard National Trailer Corp. v. U.S., CIt # 24-00034).

An aluminum foil importer added its own motion for judgment to a stack of cases, primarily coming from the foil and solar panel industries, challenging the Commerce Department’s alleged overemphasis on only one or two factors out of the five used to analyze a product’s country of origin in evasion investigations (see 2407030064, 2406140059 and 2401230041) (Hanon Systems Alabama Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00013).

The Commerce Department “misunderstood” a court order to explain why an industry support calculation didn’t involve double-counting, an importer said July 26 in a reply to the government (Tenaris Bay City v. U.S., CIT # 22-00343).

In a post-oral argument (see 2407250041) submission, all plaintiffs in a case regarding the scope of an antidumping duty order on steel wheels from China again pushed back against the government, saying that DOJ was misrepresenting communications during the order’s original investigation (Asia Wheel v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00096).

The Commerce Department should have treated exporter Koehler's unpaid antidumping duty liability as a selling expense that lowered constructed export price (CEP) instead of as an increase to the cost of production, antidumping duty petitioner Domtar Corp. argued at the Court of International Trade. Filing a complaint on Aug. 1, Domtar said CEP should have been lowered since the expenses were "associated with commercial activities in the United States" (Domtar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00113).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

A Chinese garlic exporter filed a complaint July 31 in the Court of International Trade claiming that the Commerce Department wrongly determined in an antidumping duty review that its U.S. sales were not bona fide and denied it a separate rate (Jining Huahui International Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00111).

The Commerce Department switched the basis on which it found the Korean government's full allotment of emissions permits under the Korean Emissions Trading System (K-ETS) was specific. Submitting its remand results under protest on July 31, Commerce said the full allotment of the permits was de facto specific after the Court of International Trade rejected the idea that the full allotment was de jure specific (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00170).