In an Oct. 14 complaint, domestic brake drum producer Webb Wheel Products argued that the Commerce Department used the wrong surrogate value for a mandatory respondent’s “recarburizing agent” in its antidumping duty investigation on brake drums from China (Webb Wheel Products v. United States, CIT # 25-00207).

The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 10 issued its mandate after affirming the final results of the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum wire and cable from China (see 2508190041). In August, the appellate court upheld the Commerce Department's decision to reject exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer's response to a separate rate questionnaire that already has been rescinded. The court said "Commerce has broad discretion to set and enforce its regulatory procedures and deadlines" (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).

Challenging an affirmative antidumping duty determination regarding Chinese brake drums, an importer and exporter said Oct. 10 that the Commerce Department failed to properly value the sole mandatory respondent’s inland freight costs and scrap recycling process (Consolidated Metco v. United States, CIT # 25-00208).

The Commerce Department improperly attributed freight and marine insurance income to antidumping duty respondent Suncity Metals and Tubes during the 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on Indian-origin welded stainless pressure pipe, the respondent argued in an Oct. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Suncity Metals and Tubes v. United States, CIT # 25-00222).

In a complaint filed Oct. 8, exporter Tao Motor challenged the International Trade Commission’s affirmative injury and critical circumstances findings regarding golf carts from China. It said that imposing the Commerce Department’s recently calculated antidumping duty and countervailing duty rates would end all importation of Chinese-origin golf carts into the U.S. (Tao Motor v. United States, CIT # 25-00199).

Mediation in a customs suit at the Court of International Trade on CBP's detention of importer Inspired Ventures' tire entries didn't result in a settlement, Judge Claire Kelly said in a report of mediation filed on Oct. 9 (Inspired Ventures v. United States, CIT # 24-00062).

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

Importer Galleher submitted a notice of appeal on Oct. 8 at the Court of International Trade, indicating it will take a case on the 2017 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Last month, the trade court sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the review, after the agency added a second respondent on remand and reconsidered certain benchmark calculations (see 2509120004). However, Galleher is appealing Commerce's decision to apply the individually calculated CVD rate to Jiangsu Guyu International Trading in the review, "despite deselecting the company as a mandatory respondent," which was at issue at an earlier stage of litigation (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03885).

Arguing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 3 that the Commerce Department was right to exclude its in-transit mattresses from its affiliated importer’s constructed export price, exporter PT. Zinus Global Indonesia said petitioners “overstate their case” that data anomalies rendered the department’s choice unreasonable (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1674).