The Commerce Department properly picked Turkey as a third country comparison market and decided that no adjustment to an antidumping duty respondent's cost of manufacturing was necessary in the AD investigation on melamine from Qatar, the U.S. argued in a Jan. 9 response to petitioner Cornerstone Chemical's motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Cornerstone Chemical v. United States, CIT # 25-00005).
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. argued on Jan. 12 that the "undisputed facts" show that importer Lanxess' polymerization accelerator -- a substance used to speed up the chemical process of plastic manufacturing -- can't accelerate a chemical reaction "in its condition as imported," thus removing it from Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3915 as a "reaction accelerator" (Lanxess Corporation v. United States, CIT # 23-00073).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
In a Jan. 8 notice of supplemental authority, the government said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in Mosaic Co. v. United States (see 2512050026) was applicable to a current case challenging the Commerce Department's finding that a Korean electricity program was de facto specific to one of its three largest users (Hyundai Steel v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00190).
After their previous Dec. 12 reply briefs were struck, petitioners American Shrimp Processors Associations and Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee jointly opposed the motions for judgment filed by shrimp exporters from Ecuador, India and Vietnam challenging an International Trade Commission injury finding (Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila v. United States, CIT # 25-00029; Seafood Exporters Association of India v. United States, CIT # 25-00031; Shrimp Committee of the Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers v. United States, CIT # 25-00032).
Law firm Miller & Chevalier asked the Court of International Trade to partially lift the stay ordered in a handful of cases seeking refunds of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to let certain importers file a motion for a preliminary injunction to suspend liquidation of certain entries for which the importers have paid IEEPA tariffs.
Importer G&H Diversified Manufacturing opposed Jan. 8 the United States’ request for an extension of time in its steel tube classification case, saying it hadn’t been consulted and would be prejudiced by the delay (G&H Diversified Manufacturing v. United States, CIT # 22-00130).
AD/CVD evasion petitioner U.S. OCTG Manufacturers Association opposed a group of importers' bid for leave to amend their complaints in an Enforce and Protect Act case to add two counts to challenge CBP's initiation of the challenged EAPA investigations as "untimely" and the interim measures imposed as a violation of the importers' due process rights (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00182).
The U.S. either "concedes, does not dispute, or misses the point of, [importer Cozy Comfort's] key arguments" in the importer's appeal of the Court of International Trade's decision classifying The Comfy, an oversized pullover, as a pullover and not a blanket, Cozy argued in a Jan. 9 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Cozy Comfort v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1889).