The International Trade Commission inadequately supported its decision not to exclude Amsted Rail from the injury investigation on freight rail couplers (FRCs) from China and Mexico, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public on Oct. 20. Judge Gary Katzmann held that the ITC didn't articulate a "rational connection" between Amsted's domestic production performance and the decision not to exclude Amsted, nor did it properly support its conclusion that Amsted's exclusion would "skew the data."
Correction: In two complaints filed Oct. 10, petitioner The American Personal Transportation Vehicle Manufacturers Coalition challenged the antidumping duty investigation on Chinese-origin golf carts, saying the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission should both have found critical circumstances with regard to an exporter (The American Personal Transportation Vehicle Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, CIT # 25-00203, 25-00204).
Agreeing that the International Trade Commission isn’t required to determine that imports “surged” prior to the publication of antidumping or countervailing duty orders to find critical circumstances, a domestic pea protein producer supported Oct. 8 the ITC’s own explanation of the relevant standard (see 2509290056) (NURA USA v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00182).
Exporter Kangdi Electric Vehicle (Hainan) and its affiliated importer Kandi America filed a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 14 to contest the International Trade Commission's and Commerce Department's affirmative finding of critical circumstances regarding Chinese low speed personal transportation vehicles from China (Kangdi Electric Vehicle (Hainan) v. United States, CIT #'s 25-00201, -00202).
The International Trade Commission doesn't have to identify whether a surge of imports subject to antidumping duties has an adverse impact on the time period after which the final AD order is issued to make a critical circumstances finding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Oct. 15. Judges Richard Taranto, Alan Lourie and Tiffany Cunningham said the relevant statutory provision, 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)(4)(A)(i) "does not demand a determination focused on the time after the antidumping duty order issues."
The International Trade Commission failed to adequately consider "key market data" when reaching an affirmative critical circumstances determination in the injury proceeding on low speed personal transportation vehicles from China, importer Vexas, doing business as Atlas, said in an Oct. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Vexas v. United States, CIT # 25-00206).
In two complaints filed Oct. 10, petitioner The American Personal Transportation Vehicle Manufacturers Coalition challenged the antidumping duty investigation on Chinese-origin golf carts, saying the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission should both have found critical circumstances with regard to an exporter (The American Personal Transportation Vehicle Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, CIT # 25-00203, 25-00204).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 15 affirmed the validity of the International Trade Commission's affirmative critical circumstances determination on imports of raw honey from Vietnam, which imposed retroactive antidumping duties on the subject goods in the 90-day window prior to the AD investigation's preliminary determination. Judges Richard Taranto, Alan Lourie and Tiffany Cunningham rejected the claim from a group of honey importers that the ITC was required to find that a surge of imports made after the filing of the AD petition had an adverse impact after the final AD order was issued. Writing for the court, Taranto said the relevant statute, 19 U.S.C. Section 1673d(b)(4)(A)(i), "does not demand a determination focused on the time after the antidumping duty order issues."
In a complaint filed Oct. 8, exporter Tao Motor challenged the International Trade Commission’s affirmative injury and critical circumstances findings regarding golf carts from China. It said that imposing the Commerce Department’s recently calculated antidumping duty and countervailing duty rates would end all importation of Chinese-origin golf carts into the U.S. (Tao Motor v. United States, CIT # 25-00199).
The Commerce Department properly excluded seven types of bricks imported by Fedmet Resources Corp. from the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China on remand, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 9. Judge M. Miller Baker said the conclusion comports with a 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which led to the standard that the addition of any amount of alumina to a magnesia carbon brick excludes it from the orders.