The Court of International Trade on Aug. 28 denied both the government's and importer HyAxiom's motions for judgment in a customs classification case on PC50 supermodules, which are a part of a stationary hydrogen fuel cell generator known as the PureCell Model 400. Judge Timothy Stanceu said a factual determination is needed on whether the PC50's "principal function" is gas generation.
Exporter Yingli Energy (China) Co. filed a complaint on Aug. 28 at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's denial of its separate rate application in the 10th review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China, claiming that it showed its independence from Chinese state control (Yingli Energy (China) Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00131).
The Commerce Department didn’t rely on inaccurate data to reach a zero percent dumping margin for a mattress exporter, the U.S. said Aug. 26. It said any apparent data inconsistencies were simply the result of the department’s own estimation model, used to fill in information that the exporter hadn’t tracked (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. U.S., CITConsol. # 21-00277).
Exporter Your Standing International argued on Aug. 26 at the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department erred in using the financial statements of Taiwanese company San Shing Fastech Corporation in calculating Your Standing's constructed value profit in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Taiwan (Your Standing International v. United States, CIT # 24-00055).
Importers led by Sweet Harvest Foods argued on Aug. 23 that the government's claims in defense of its affirmative critical circumstances determination on the importers' Vietnamese honey imports "contravene the plain language and logic of the statute." Filing a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Sweet Harvest said the statute plainly tells the International Trade Commission to conduct an "inherently forward-looking analysis" in assessing whether imports from the 90-day critical circumstances period will likely undermine the remedial effect of the antidumping duty order and that any arguments to the contrary undercut this clear message (Sweet Harvest Foods v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1370).
The Commerce Department on remand at the Court of International Trade lowered the dumping margin for exporter Apiario Diamante Comercial Exportadora, known as Supermel, from an 83.72% adverse facts available rate to a 10.52% mark. The agency made the switch in the AD investigation on raw honey from Brazil after incorporating the court's finding that Supermel's failure to reconcile its costs with its beekeeper suppliers' costs was immaterial to the calculation of the AD rate (Apiario Diamante Comercial Exportadora v. United States, CIT # 22-00185).
The U.S. told the Court of International Trade on Aug. 23 that exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. doesn't have statutory or constitutional standing to challenge CBP's denial of the company's request to remove it from a withhold release order (WRO) 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).
Responding to motions for judgment filed by the government of Canada and Canadian lumber exporters led by a mandatory respondent, the U.S. pushed back Aug. 22 against claims that, among other things, it had wrongly included a legacy contract in the calculation of the respondent’s costs and found a “bookkeeping convenience” to be evidence of less-than-fair-value transactions between its affiliates (see 2404110063) (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00187).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 22 asked the government for more information after CBP acknowledged inadvertently liquidating entries subject to an injunction from the court (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00025).
An importer filed Aug. 21 its long-delayed motion for judgment in its test case alleging its Chinese-origin selective catalytic reduction catalysts had wrongly been assessed Section 301 duties. The catalysts were misclassified by CBP as centrifuges instead of “reaction initiators, reaction accelerators and catalytic preparations, not elsewhere specified or included,” it said (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. U.S., CIT #21-00573).