Court of International Trade activity

Importer Pitts Enterprises, doing business as Dorsey Intermodal, told the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department illicitly turned the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese chassis and subassemblies thereof into orders covering parts of chassis. Filing a motion for judgment on Aug. 21, Dorsey said the entry of Chinese components in "separate, independent shipments" are "straightforwardly" not covered "unassembled subassemblies" (Pitts Enterprises v. United States, CIT # 24-00030).

U.S. importer CME Acquisitions argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent decision in PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S. didn't overrule the appellate court's decision in Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. U.S. regarding how the Commerce Department sets the non-selected respondents' antidumping duty rate (CME Acquisitions v. United States, CIT # 24-00032).

Importer Seneca Foods Corp. filed a notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 21, claiming that a recent Section 232 exclusion request denial from the Commerce Department is relevant to the resolution of its case (Seneca Foods Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00243).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 21 allowed the U.S. to serve German paper exporter Koehler through its U.S. counsel in a suit seeking over $193 million in unpaid antidumping duties and interest from the company. Judge Gary Katzmann said the court's rules allow for such service and that this type of service doesn't disturb international comity or Koehler's due process rights.

After a four-times-remanded case from 2017 reached a conclusion in the Court of International Trade and went to appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. and a petitioner filed opening briefs Aug. 16 defending the trade court's final decision (AG Der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1498).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 15 decision made public Aug. 20 rejected the Commerce Department's determination that some of exporter Megaa Moda's home market sales weren't made "for consumption" in that market. Judge Thomas Aquilino said Commerce must "diligently examine the circumstances surrounding a transaction," and can't simply use a prior CIT decision to say that the agency can't use the trade patterns of a company's customers to find that the sales aren't "for consumption" in the home market.

Cumulation occurs on the date a petition is filed, not when the International Trade Commission votes, the ITC claimed Aug. 16 in opposition to a Court of International Trade ruling. It said this had been established by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Tenaris Bay City, et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00344).

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 15 decision made public Aug. 20 remanded the Commerce Department's 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from India. Judge Thomas Aquilino said Commerce failed to adequately respond to the petitioners' claim that some of exporter Megaa Moda's home market sales weren't made "for consumption" in India. However, the judge sustained Commerce's decision not to offset Megaa Moda's financial expenses by money earned from its "interest subvention program" and fixed deposits with Indian bank Federal Bank Limited.