The Court of International Trade on March 26 ordered importer Lutron Electronics Co. to submit a supplemental brief further explaining its demand for redacted information in CBP's internal documents as part of a customs suit on the company's window shade machines. Judge Richard Eaton said Lutron must reconcile its motion to compel the documents with the holdings from Ford Motor Co. v. U.S., a 2010 U.S. Court of Federal Claims decision (Lutron Electronics Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00264).
The Commerce Department on March 26 set a higher antidumping duty rate for exporter Ningbo Master International Trade in the investigation on beer kegs from China after electing on remand to use Brazilian wage data for the surrogate labor value. The exporter's rate. if sustained by the Court of International Trade, would rise from a de minimis mark to 4.23%, lifting the separate rate applicants' AD mark with it by an equal amount (New American Keg v. United States, CIT # 20-00008).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a March 25 confidential order granted motions to treat submissions from the U.S. and Chinese exporter Ninestar as highly sensitive documents in Ninestar's case contesting its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The submissions pertained to the exporter's motion to unseal and unredact the record, which argued that the company needs access to the information in the proceeding to adequately defend itself (see 2403220035) (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
A Turkish hot-rolled steel exporter March 18 defended its appeal over the currency that “controls” its products’ pricing against opposition by the U.S. and domestic petitioners, saying the petitioners had done their math wrong (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1158).
A petitioner replied March 18 to opposition to its appeal of a Court of International Trade decision that an importer’s plastic shelf dividers weren't covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders on raw flexible magnets from China (see 2309260049). It said that the plain text of the orders didn't exclude “functionally inflexible” magnets and that the dividers couldn't be “rigid” because they were “capable of being bent” (Magnum Magnetics Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1164).
The government is deploying a "smoke and mirrors approach" to distract the Court of International Trade from exporter Chandan Steel Limited's arguments in a case related to the 2018-19 antidumping duty review on Indian stainless steel flanges, Chandan argued March 25 (Kisaan Die Tech Private, Ltd. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00512).
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.
The U.S. responded to a petitioner’s argument that a Commerce Department remand redetermination ignored “inconsistencies” found in a court-ordered on-site verification visit to an Indian forged steel fluid end block exporter (see 2403150041). It said that even the petitioner concedes that the department’s new result complies with the court’s remand opinion (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00007).
A group of U.S. mattress makers, led by Brooklyn Bedding, opposed exporter CVB's request for a 60-day extension in which to file its opening brief in an injury suit at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Only consenting to a 14-day extension, the mattress makers said CVB "has failed to show good cause exists" for a longer extension since the trade court's decision in the suit was issued over 90 days ago (CVB v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).