A Chinese garlic exporter filed a complaint July 31 in the Court of International Trade claiming that the Commerce Department wrongly determined in an antidumping duty review that its U.S. sales were not bona fide and denied it a separate rate (Jining Huahui International Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00111).
The Commerce Department switched the basis on which it found the Korean government's full allotment of emissions permits under the Korean Emissions Trading System (K-ETS) was specific. Submitting its remand results under protest on July 31, Commerce said the full allotment of the permits was de facto specific after the Court of International Trade rejected the idea that the full allotment was de jure specific (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00170).
The U.S. brought a complaint July 31 against a limited liability company and its owner for dodging antidumping duties on steel hangers, which it alleged “decimated the steel wire hanger manufacturing industry, leading to the closure of many manufacturing facilities across the United States and the loss of hundreds of U.S. jobs” (United States v. Zhe “John” Liu, CIT # 24-00132).
The Court of International Trade again remanded the Commerce Department's decision to continue using adverse facts available against countervailing duty respondent The Ancientree Cabinet Co. related to its alleged receipt of benefits under China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. In a July 22 decision made public July 30, Judge Richard Eaton instructed the agency to "determine a customer-specific rate that excludes" the EBCP subsidy amount for Ancientree's U.S buyers "whose non-use" of the program was verified.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 1 sustained the International Trade Commission's decision to cumulate hot-rolled steel imports from Australia with other countries' goods when conducting a five-year sunset review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia. Judge Gary Katzmann rejected exporter BlueScope Steel's claim that the ITC had established a past practice of considering U.S. investments by foreign producers in cumulation analyses. The court held that the cumulation decision was backed by substantial evidence.
Plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation said the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron principle of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes (see 2406280051), is relevant to the consequential litigation concerning the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 duties (HMTX Industries v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Multiple Indonesian glycine exporters argued July 29 that they have provided plenty of evidence they didn’t transship glycine from China. CBP and a petitioner, they said, are simply relying an a separate finding of affiliation and, otherwise, pure speculation (Newtrend USA v. U.S., CIT # 22-00347)
The Court of International Trade on July 30 stayed Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninestar Corp.'s lawsuit challenging its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List for four months or until the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force issues a final decision in the exporter's delisting request before the task force (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
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.