An aluminum foil importer argued Feb. 20 that the Commerce Department was wrong to find that a South Korean exporter circumvented antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese aluminum because the underlying Chinese inputs underwent “significant” processing (Hanon Systems Alabama Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00013).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 22 remanded the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves rejected the agency's continued use of total adverse facts available against exporters Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) and Xinjiang Meihua Amino Acid Co., finding that the companies submitted evidence on the amount of duties it paid as requested by Commerce. Choe-Groves also said the data, submitted 56 days before the review's preliminary results, wasn't untimely. The court also faulted Commerce for continuing to not conduct a collapsing analysis of exporter Deosen Biochemical, ruling that the company wasn't given adequate notice that it could request a new collapsing analysis.
Exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. filed a lawsuit at the Court of International Trade to contest a withhold release order on the company and CBP's rejection of the exporter's petition to be removed from the WRO. The company, which goes by Jiaxing Hoshine, said the WRO has done "significant and irreparable damage" to its business and reputation and that CBP has skirted the law by failing to disclose the evidence it used in issuing the WRO (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00048).
The U.S. will appeal a Court of International Trade case on the 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China, it said in a Feb. 16 notice of appeal. The government lost at the trade court with regard to its land benchmark calculation and use of adverse facts available pertaining to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (see 2312200026).
An antidumping duty petitioner said Feb. 17 that the Commerce Department accidentally included offsets for scrap not produced during the investigation period in its calculation of an exporter's normal value in an administrative review of the antidumping duty orders on Greek pipe (The American Line Pipe Producers Trade Association Committee v. U.S., CIT # 24-00012).
A Chinese ball bearings exporter asked for another remand of an antidumping duty review on its products after the Commerce Department exchanged its adverse facts available AD rate for one based on neutral facts, saying the department double-counted when constructing its products’ values and wrongly capped its revenue related to Section 301 duties (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00038).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 20 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea. In its remand redetermination, Commerce lowered exporter Hyundai Steel Co.'s CVD rate to a de minimis mark after removing the subsidy attributed to the company's usage rights for the North Incheon Harbor in South Korea (see 2401240062) (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00304).
Again remanding the Commerce Department’s final affirmative determination in mattress exporter Zinus Indonesia's antidumping duty case, the Court of International Trade said that facts otherwise available weren't warranted in Commerce's construction of the exporter’s export price and that the department needed to consider new evidence in constructing its selling expenses.
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Importer Trijicon's tritium-powered gun sights are "lamps" and not "apparatus," slotting them under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9405, the Court of International Trade ruled on Feb. 16. Judge Mark Barnett said the gun sights do not meet definition of "apparatus" put forward by either Trijicon or the government, who respectively defined the term as a set of materials or equipment and a complex device. The court instead found that the products "are readily classified as lamps," which are defined as "any of various devices for producing light."