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.
Importer Phoenix Metal Co. will appeal a June Court of International Trade decision sustaining CBP's finding that the company evaded the antidumping and countervailing duties on cast iron soil pipe from China by transshipping the pipe through Cambodia. In its decision, the court rejected Phoenix's due process claims, which faulted CBP for failing to notify the company that it was subject to an interim Enforce and Protect Act investigation (see 2406100027). The trade court said the importer failed to allege that it suffered specific-enough harm by being subject to the interim measures without adequate notice. According to the Aug. 9 notice of appeal, Phoenix will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Phoenix Metal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00048).
An importer of Vietnamese countertops said in a response to an Enforce and Protect Act investigation that it didn’t deny some of its countertops should have been covered by AD orders on Chinese quartz slabs -- it just hadn’t known they had originated from China (Superior Commercial Solutions v. United States, CIT # 24-00052).
In a post-oral argument (see 2407250041) submission, all plaintiffs in a case regarding the scope of an antidumping duty order on steel wheels from China again pushed back against the government, saying that DOJ was misrepresenting communications during the order’s original investigation (Asia Wheel v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00096).
The Court of International Trade on July 30 opened registration for its 22nd Judicial Conference, which will be held Oct. 10 at the Westin Jersey City Newport Hotel in Jersey City, New Jersey. The conference will feature events on agency deference in trade cases, the Enforce and Protect Act and circumvention issues, and ethics issues.
The U.S. brought a complaint July 31 against a limited liability company and its owner for dodging antidumping duties on steel hangers, which it alleged “decimated the steel wire hanger manufacturing industry, leading to the closure of many manufacturing facilities across the United States and the loss of hundreds of U.S. jobs” (United States v. Zhe “John” Liu, CIT # 24-00132).
Multiple Indonesian glycine exporters argued July 29 that they have provided plenty of evidence they didn’t transship glycine from China. CBP and a petitioner, they said, are simply relying an a separate finding of affiliation and, otherwise, pure speculation (Newtrend USA v. U.S., CIT # 22-00347)
Litigants sparred at a July 23 oral argument at the Court of International Trade on whether the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel wheels from China cover wheels shipped from Thailand with either a rim or a disc made in China. The parties disagreed on whether a prior scope ruling from the Commerce Department spoke to whether these "mixed" goods -- wheels made with either a Chinese-origin rim or disc, but not both -- are covered by the AD/CVD scope (Asia Wheel v. United States, CIT # 23-00096).
In litigation brought by a Vietnamese solar panel exporter, an importer said July 9 that the Commerce Department couldn’t find that all of a country’s exporters had circumvented antidumping and countervailing duty orders based on finding that one mandatory respondent did (Trina Solar (Vietnam) Science & Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00228).
CBP ignored the metadata of certain photographs and videos in an evasion investigation in order to claim they were unreliable, a wooden cabinet importer argued July 8 at the Court of International Trade (Skyview Cabinet USA v. U.S., CIT # 22-00080).