Antidumping duty petitioner American Brass Rod Fair Trade Coalition told the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department erred in making an adjustment for AD respondent Rajhans Metal's claimed work-in-process (WIP) and in valuing the company's scrap offset. Filing a complaint Aug. 9, the petitioner contested Rajhans' 2.19% AD rate set in the investigation on brass rod from India (American Brass Rod Fair Trade Coalition v. U.S., CIT # 24-00119).
Importer Phoenix Metal Co. will appeal a June Court of International Trade decision sustaining CBP's finding that the company evaded the antidumping and countervailing duties on cast iron soil pipe from China by transshipping the pipe through Cambodia. In its decision, the court rejected Phoenix's due process claims, which faulted CBP for failing to notify the company that it was subject to an interim Enforce and Protect Act investigation (see 2406100027). The trade court said the importer failed to allege that it suffered specific-enough harm by being subject to the interim measures without adequate notice. According to the Aug. 9 notice of appeal, Phoenix will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Phoenix Metal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00048).
An importer of China-origin garlic chunks argued in an Aug. 7 complaint that it shouldn’t have been found to be circumventing antidumping duties on fresh garlic from China, saying that its garlic chunks are exempt because they are preserved in citric acid (Green Garden Produce v. United States, CIT # 24-00114).
The Commerce Department "under protest" notified an Indonesian polyester textured yarn exporter of specific deficiencies in a questionnaire response it provided and gave it the chance to address them. As a result, the department reduced the exporter’s dumping margin from 26.07% to 9.20% (PT. Asia Pacific Fibers v. United States, CIT # 22-00007).
Countervailing duty petitioners Bio-Lab, Innovative Water Care and Occidental Chemical Corp. challenged the Commerce Department's refusal to use adverse facts available against exporters Heze Huayi Chemical Co. and Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. in an administrative review of the CVD order on chlorinated isocyanurates from China (Bio-Lab v. United States, CIT # 24-00118).
Importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 claiming CBP failed to provide the company with a "statement of reasons" for the denial of its protest concerning its passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. The company said protest denial was improper because it centered on a message from the Commerce Department, which the importer wasn't given access to (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. U.S., CIT # 24-00149).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Russian exporter Industrial Group Phosphorite told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Commerce Department contradicted the countervailing duty statute in finding that the Russian government's provision of natural gas was de facto specific. Filing a reply brief on Aug. 7, the exporter said Commerce can't find that the agrochemical industry is the "predominant user of natural gas" by only comparing its usage among a subset of natural gas users as opposed to all natural gas users (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1593).
An importer of Vietnamese countertops said in a response to an Enforce and Protect Act investigation that it didn’t deny some of its countertops should have been covered by AD orders on Chinese quartz slabs -- it just hadn’t known they had originated from China (Superior Commercial Solutions v. United States, CIT # 24-00052).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 denied exporter Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Isihsal Endustrisi's motions to intervene in an antidumping suit and secure an injunction on its entries because its entries have "already been liquidated." Judge Jane Restani said that because the company failed to secure an injunction from the court prior to the liquidation of its entries, the court can't provide the relief the company seeks.