The U.S. defended its decision made on remand to include exporter Cheng Shin's temporary-use (T-type) tires within the scope of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan. Responding to comments from Cheng Shin on Dec. 22 at the Court of International Trade, the government said Commerce reasonably found that Cheng Shin's tires "are of a size that fits passenger cars and, therefore, are in-scope merchandise," and additionally don't qualify for the exclusion for temporary tires (United Steel Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, v. United States, CIT # 24-00165).
The Commerce Department erred in assigning total adverse facts available to respondent Vinlong Stainless Steel (Vietnam) in the 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded stainless steel pressure pipe from Vietnam, Vinlong and importer Norca Industrial argued in a Dec. 23 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Norca Industrial Company v. United States, CIT # 25-00132).
The International Trade Commission can't rely on the Commerce Department's findings regarding the post-petition increase in subject imports for the purpose of making a critical circumstances determination, importer Nura USA argued in a Dec. 23 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Nura USA v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00182).
The Commerce Department properly found that exporter Universal Quartz was ineligible to participate in the agency's certification process for verifying that quartz surface products from Malaysia weren't subject to the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on the same goods from China, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply to importer AM Stone & Cabinets' motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade, the government also said that despite AM Stone's claim that Commerce impermissibly used adverse facts available, the agency didn't apply AFA (AM Stone & Cabinets v. United States, CIT # 24-00241).
The Commerce Department lawfully decided not to use partial adverse facts available against respondent Prinx Chengshan Tire (Thailand) in the antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from Thailand regarding Prinx's reporting of its financial expense ratio calculation, the U.S. argued. Responding to petitioner United Steelworkers' motion for judgment, the government said Commerce "has broad discretion under the statutory scheme in deciding whether to apply an adverse inference" (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO v. United States, CIT # 25-00004).
The Commerce Department didn't reasonably support its decision to remove respondent PT. Zinus Global Indonesia's in-transit mattresses from its quarterly ratio calculations, since it relied on a "demonstrably inaccurate 'fact' to justify its decision," petitioners, led by Brooklyn Bedding, argued (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1674).
Exporters challenged several aspects of the Commerce Department’s investigation of ferrosilicon from Malaysia in a Dec. 17 motion for judgment (Om Materials (Sarawak) v. United States, CIT # 25-00130).
Importer Cyber Power Systems erred in analyzing whether its cables fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8544.42.90, which provides for cables "of a kind used for telecommunications," by only looking to the "device and industry in which" its cables are used, the U.S. argued (Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. United States, CIT # 21-00200).
Importer G&H Diversified Manufacturing on Dec. 19 asked the Court of International Trade for a ruling on a pair of deposition notices directed at CBP and the Bureau of Industry and Security in its lawsuit seeking a Section 232 duty exclusion for its steel tube imports (G&H Diversified Manufacturing v. United States, CIT # 22-00130).
Importer Transvolt took to the Court of International Trade to argue that CBP unlawfully excluded its golf carts from entry based either on the notion that the golf carts fail to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or that the carts were transshipped through Vietnam. Transvolt filed a complaint on Dec. 22 in one of multiple cases the importer brought to contest the exclusion of multiple of its entries (Transvolt v. United States, CIT # 25-00582).