The Court of International Trade on May 28 told the Commerce Department to conduct sunset reviews of antidumping duty orders on stilbenic optical brightening agents from Taiwan and China, after the agency revoked the orders after not receiving a timely notice of intent to participate in the reviews. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce's regulation, which calls for revocation of the order after no such notice is received, violates the applicable statute, which says Commerce shall conduct the review after receiving either a notice of intent to participate or a substantive response. Because U.S. producer Archroma timely filed a substantive response, Commerce should have started the reviews.
Exporters of stainless steel flanges from India are close to a settlement with the government to avoid a remand in a case involving an antidumping duty review in which the Commerce Department selected only one respondent (Kisaan Die Tech Private Limited v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00512).
Another petitioner spoke up in favor of the International Trade Commission's redaction of confidential business information after the commission was taken to task for allegedly going too far by Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden (see 2404010066). (OCP v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00219).
A hardwood plywood importer sought dismissal of its case in the Court of International Trade after winning a similar one April 8 (Liberty Woods International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00143).
After Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden questioned the International Trade Commission in an oral hearing for what he considered to be over-redaction of a petitioner’s record information (see 2404010066), that petitioner supported the ITC’s decision in a brief May 22 (OCP v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00219).
CBP “without explanation” reclassified imported nitrile rubber gloves as non-medical gloves and subjected them to a 3% duty rate, despite the gloves meeting all FDA requirements for medical gloves, their importer said in a complaint filed at the Court of International Trade May 22 (SW Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 23-00119).
Lawyers gave feedback this week on recently issued Commerce Department antidumping and countervailing duty regulations, with at least one attorney saying the changes were mostly positive for petitioners. They also discussed challenges faced by different parties during International Trade Commission investigations, and they said they sided with the ITC in its ongoing defense of its treatment of confidential information at the Court of International Trade.
The U.S. told the Court of International Trade on May 22 that a corrected notice of denial of a customs broker license has been sent to a Georgia woman. The woman is suing the government to contest six questions on the licensing exam after scoring 73.75% on it, just short of the 75% or above she needed to pass (see 2402160040) (Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois v. U.S., CIT # 24-00046).
In reply briefs May 17, a rail coupler importer refused to back down on its argument before the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department can’t begin new investigations fewer than two years before completion of a previous one due to statutory language governing changed circumstances reviews (Wabtec Corporation v. U.S., CIT #s 23-00160, -00161).
The U.S. moved to dismiss a customs penalty suit it brought against importers Cruzin Cooler and Bad Lama and their owner Kevin Beal after it already obtained default judgment from the Court of International Trade against the companies for knowingly misclassifying their entries to lower their duty liability (United States v. Cruzin Cooler, CIT # 15-00333).