The U.S. pushed back Sept. 20 against a Turkish steel exporter’s argument that the Commerce Department shouldn’t have determined during a review that its “sale dates” are the invoice dates, rather than dates of contract (see 2407250026) (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 24-00018).

The U.S. on Sept. 20 defended the Commerce Department’s continued decision on a second remand to use Brazil as the primary surrogate country and Malaysia for the surrogate values of a particular input in a 2019-2020 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00190).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. agreed to refund Section 232 duties that exporter ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada paid on its steel bars and rod imports, the parties said in a Sept. 20 stipulated judgment submitted to the Court of International Trade. The parties said the 47 entries at issue across seven cases brought by the company qualify for exclusion to the duties granted by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada v. United States, CIT # 21-00038).

In a 131-page brief before the Court of International Trade, the U.S. responded Sept. 20 to claims by plaintiffs that its circumvention finding regarding Vietnamese hardwood plywood was flawed. It said again that the Commerce Department’s decision to not pick a mandatory respondent was fair and that adverse facts available had been correctly applied to 20 exporters (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00144).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. on Sept. 20 defended its decision on remand to not apply partial adverse facts available against exporter Garg Tube, claiming that the exporter was "fully cooperative," having made multiple attempts to get cost information from an unaffiliated supplier. The government said Commerce couldn't find enough evidence to show that the potential leverage Garg Tube could exert over the supplier supports the use of AFA (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT # 21-00169).

A German exporter of steel used to transport corrosive materials responded Sept. 20 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to a U.S. claim that the Commerce Department's decision to calculate certain of the exporter’s production costs for a review using the items' sales values was rational because the figures “came from Dillinger’s own books and records” (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1498).

A petitioner in a review of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain chassis and subassemblies from China withdrew from a case challenging that review after it successfully sought intervention by consent in April (see 2404120032) (Pitts Enterprises v. United States, CIT # 24-00030).

The Court of International Trade granted Sept. 20 an importer’s consent motion to stay for 180 days proceedings brought against it by the U.S. The importer said in its motion, filed Sept. 18, that the parties were working to settle the case, which alleges the importer dodged antidumping duties on tapered roller bearings by misclassifying its entries (United States v. Wanxiang America Corp., CIT # 22-00205).