The Court of International Trade upheld on Feb. 25 the Commerce Department's inclusion of Precision Components' low-carbon steel blanks in the scope of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Judge Joseph Laroski said Commerce was entirely in line when it considered a prior scope ruling asked for by Precision and concluded that the products at issue in the prior scope ruling were identical to the products considered in the subsequent scope case.
Responding to a petitioner (see 2412300009), the U.S. said Feb. 21 that two mandatory respondents in a countervailing duty review of chlorinated isoscyanurates from China hadn’t earned an adverse inference for failing to provide the Commerce Department land-use contracts that would show they hadn’t been granted land for less-than-adequate remuneration (Bio-Lab v. U.S., CIT # 24-00118).
U.S. activated carbon producers Calgon Carbon Corporation and Norit Americas brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade on Feb. 21 claiming that the Commerce Department wrongly accepted an antidumping duty order administrative review mandatory respondent’s allegation of a ministerial error. The allegation actually concerned “a methodological issue, not a ministerial issue,” they said (Calgon Carbon Corporation v. United States, CIT # 25-00028).
The Commerce Department failed to use adverse facts available against antidumping duty review respondent PT Bahari Makmur Sejati in the AD investigation on frozen warmwater shrimp from Indonesia, petitioner American Shrimp Processors Association argued in a Feb. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner also challenged the agency's surrogate company pick for valuing home market profit and expense ratios and "allocation of the entire sales price for shrimp sold with sauce to the shrimp alone" (American Shrimp Processors Association v. United States, CIT # 25-00027).
Earlier this month, Wisconsin man Gary Barnes filed a lawsuit challenging the chief executive's right to impose tariffs as a violation of the U.S. Constitution (see 2502060026). In an email to Trade Law Daily, Barnes said he's targeting tariffs, since they "force retirees, low-income citizens and those on some kind of living assistance to help subsidize tax breaks for others" and also victimize the "less fortunate in our society" (Gary L Barnes v. United States President Donald Trump, CIT # 25-00043).
A Vietnamese shrimp exporter trade group challenged the International Trade Commission's finding that frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador, India, Indonesia and Vietnam injured the U.S. industry. Filing a complaint on Feb. 21, the group challenged the ITC's finding of significant price underselling and on the "interchangeability between" farm-raised and wild-caught shrimp as evidence of the "degree of competition between" imports and domestic production and the "consequent effect on prices" (Shrimp Committee of the Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers v. United States, CIT # 25-00032).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 25 sustained the Commerce Department's inclusion of importer Precision Components' low-carbon steel blanks within the scope of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Judge Joseph Laroski said Commerce reasonably determined that the products were already found to be in-scope merchandise in a 2020 scope ruling involving products from Precision. In its second scope ruling request, Precision said its products were "moved within the scope in" the previous scope ruling. The court said it was "more than reasonable for Commerce to rely upon Precision's own statements."
The Commerce Department failed to investigate subsidies received by cross-owned suppliers of fresh shrimp in the countervailing duty investigation on frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador, petitioner American Shrimp Processors Association argued in a Feb. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The association also contested Commerce's findings that the provision of fuel and brackish water for less than adequate remuneration were not countervailable (American Shrimp Processors Association v. United States, CIT # 25-00026).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Target General Merchandise said in a Feb. 20 response to a U.S. cross-motion for judgment in its classification case that it no longer will be disputing CBP’s classification of its artificial Christmas trees, explaining that the government is already arguing that the trees should be classified under a duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading (Target General Merchandise v. United States, CIT Consol. # 15-00069).