The Commerce Department failed to explain its use of an inter-quarter comparison in a differential pricing analysis but not in a margin calculation, despite being told to do so by the Court of International Trade in a remand order, exporters argued Oct. 18 (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00113).
Court of International Trade activity
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 21 dismissed importer Phoenix Metal Co.'s appeal of CBP's affirmative finding that the company evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on cast iron soil pipe from China by transshipping through Cambodia (see 2406100027). The Court of International Trade rejected Phoenix's due process claims, which faulted CBP for failing to notify the company that it was subject to an interim EAPA investigation, finding that the company failed to allege that it suffered specific-enough arm by being subject to the interim measures without adequate notice (Phoenix Metal Co v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-2222).
Chinese drone-maker DJI Technology Co. is challenging the Pentagon's designation of the firm as a Chinese military company, saying the agency applied the "wrong legal standard," mixed up individuals "with common Chinese names" and relied on "stale alleged facts and attenuated connections that fall short of demonstrating" the company is connected to the Chinese military (SZ DJI Technology Co. v. U.S., D.D.C. # 24-02970).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 21 in a confidential decision sustained the Commerce Department's denials of all eight of importer Seneca Foods Corp.'s requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. Judge Gary Katzmann gave the parties until Oct. 22 to review the confidential information in the decision. Katzmann previously remanded the exclusion rejection on the grounds the Bureau of Industry and Security failed to address contradicting evidence that the U.S. industry couldn't timely provide the importer's tin mill products (see 2310180052). On remand, BIS stuck with its rejections of the exclusion requests, finding that U.S. Steel can make the same products in a sufficient quantity and in a timely manner to satisfy Seneca's needs (see 2404020047) (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).
Responding to petitioners’ pushback (see 2409270050) against new results on remand that saw the Commerce Department lower a Brazilian honey exporter’s antidumping duty rate from 83.72% to 10.52%, the U.S. said it supports the results (Apiario Diamante Comercial Exportadora v. United States, CIT # 22-00185).
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 21 sent back the Commerce Department's de jure specificity finding regarding exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret's exemption from Turkey's 0.2% Banking and Insurance Transactions Tax on foreign exchange transactions. Judge Gary Katzmann said that, in the 2020 review of the countervailing duty order on Turkish rebar, the agency failed to show that the exemption was limited by enterprise or industry.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 18 granted the voluntary dismissal of importer LE Commodities' challenge to the Commerce Department's rejection of its requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs (LE Commodities v. U.S., CIT # 23-00220).
The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade on Oct. 18 for a voluntary remand of the final results of the Commerce Department's 2019-2020 review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum extrusions from China, saying it wants to consider the impact of recent remand results in the cases Global Aluminum Distributor v. U.S. and H&E Home v. U.S. (see 2209080013) (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00072).
Exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xiang) Industry Co. on Oct. 18 told the Court of International Trade that it has statutory and constitutional standing to challenge CBP's denial of its petition to modify the withhold release order imposed on silica-based products made by its parent company Hoshine Silicon and its subsidiaries (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00048).