CBP failed to consider material evidence when it found that importer Scioto Valley Woodworking didn't evade the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China, the Court of International Trade said in a decision made public last week. Judge Lisa Wang said CBP didn't sufficiently consider evidence of the Haiyan Group's ownership of Scioto and its affiliated supplier, Alno, and it didn't adequately discuss the contents of an additional warehouse disclosed by Alno.
The Commerce Department properly decided not to reopen the record to inflate Mexican surrogate wage data and ultimately choose Brazilian wage data in the antidumping duty investigation on beer kegs from China, the Court of International Trade said. Sustaining Commerce's third remand results in the case, Judge M. Miller Baker said the agency reasonably said it was "unnecessary to reopen the record to inflate the Mexican wage figures" when the Brazilian data "suited the agency's purposes."
A New York resident brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade Nov. 21 saying that several questions on CBP’s customs broker exam were unfairly ambiguous, conflicting or lacking essential information, resulting in his failure to pass it (Shuangyang Li v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 24-00205).
Congressional intent is not "frustrated" when duty drawback claims on entries that aren't liquidated "and become final" within one year of the drawback claim being made aren't deemed liquidated, the U.S. said in a Nov. 22 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Performance Additives v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2059).
The Commerce Department calculated a zero percent dumping margin for exporter Grupo Simec on remand at the Court of International Trade, dropping the 66.7% adverse facts available rate for the company in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete rebar from Mexico. Commerce accepted submissions from the exporter on remand after the trade court said the agency unreasonably declined an extension request from the company (Grupo Acecero v. United States, CIT # 22-00202).
Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) filed a trio of opening briefs in its three concurrent appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, all of which are seeking to account for the exclusion of exporter Colakoglu from the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Turkey in the International Trade Commission's five-year sunset review of the order.
The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over importer Retractable Technologies' suit against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 rate hike on needles and syringes, given that the court has already acknowledged its ability to hear cases on agency action taken under presidential direction, Retractable said. Responding to the government's motion to dismiss the case Nov. 19, Retractable pointed to the trade court's recent decision in the case granting a preliminary injunction (PI) on the liquidation of the importer's entries subject to the duties (Retractable Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 24-00185).
Solar exporters and importers, led by the American Clean Power Association, said a suit challenging the Commerce Department's duty pause on solar cells and modules from four Southeast Asian countries is "moot" due to a failure to identify an injury that would be redressable through the retroactive imposition of AD/CVD (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).
Various companies that were originally excluded from an expedited countervailing duty review on Canadian softwood lumber asked the Court of International Trade to clarify that they're due refunds of CVD cash deposits (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).
The U.S. opposed Nov. 15 a Mexican tomato exporter’s bid to intervene in a case challenging the results of a 27-year-old antidumping duty investigation (see 2411080036) (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00204).