The Commerce Department erred in deciding to "smooth" antidumping duty respondent Prolamsa's production costs in the 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on heavy walled rectangular carbon welded steel pipes and tubes from Mexico, Prolamsa argued in an Oct. 3 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Productos Laminados de Monterrey v. United States, CIT # 25-00195).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Commerce wrongly requested from a mandatory respondent in a countervailing duty administrative review information about five government programs the department never determined were countervailable subsidies, exporter OCP said Sept. 30 (OCP v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00227).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 1 sent back the Commerce Department's decision to deny antidumping duty respondent Ditar's request for a level-of-trade analysis in the AD investigation on shopping bags from Colombia.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 1 sent back the Commerce Department's finding that antidumping duty respondent Ditar correctly reported an individual transaction, dubbed "Transaction X," as a home market sale in the AD investigation on shopping bags from Colombia. Judge M. Miller Baker said on remand the agency must address whether Ditar had "actual" knowledge of whether Transaction X was destined for export "without importing evidence relevant only to" whether Ditar had "constructive" knowledge that the sale was for export.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) doesn't require a level of trade adjustment to account for "any difference in selling activities," the Court of International Trade held on Sept. 25. Upholding the Commerce Department's level of trade regulations, Judge Mark Barnett then sustained its application to antidumping duty respondent Compania Valenciana de Aluminio Baux and its affiliate Bancolor Baux in which the agency said the companies sold common alloy aluminum sheet in its home market of Spain at only one level of trade.
The case against the lists 3 and 4A tariffs is unlikely to be heard by the Supreme Court or the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the recent decision from the Federal Circuit upholding the tariffs likely gives the Trump administration greater confidence in using tariff authorities other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, various attorneys told us.