Exporter Kingtom Aluminio opposed an attempt by U.S. industry groups the Aluminum Extruders Council and the United Steelworkers union to intervene in Kingtom's case against a finding by CBP that the company uses forced labor. Kingtom argued that the petitioners want to employ the "age-old schoolyard tactic of 'two-against-one,'" adding that the parties have "no independent interest of their own in this action" (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).

The U.S. responded Feb. 7 to an Italian pasta exporter’s argument that application of excessive adverse facts available violates the Eighth Amendment, saying the amendment “has no bearing” on antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings. It explained that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circut has found the use of AFA to be “remedial, not punitive” (Pastificio Gentile S.r.l. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00037).

Importer Shamrock Building Materials filed a stipulation of dismissal in its customs case at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 7. The importer brought the suit to contest CBP's classification of its electrical metallic tubing finished conduit and intermediate metal conduit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7306.30.1000 or 7306.30.5028, dutiable at 25%. The company said the products should fall under duty-free subheading 8547.90.0020. Counsel for Shamrock didn't respond to a request for comment (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, CIT # 21-00571).

Importers and exporters led by Amsted Rail Co. stipulated the dismissal of one of their rail coupler cases and sought to amend their complaint in another Feb. 7 (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00242, -00268).

The Commerce Department unreasonably found that a sales-based particular market situation doesn't exist in Turkey, thus erring in picking Turkey as a third country comparison market in the antidumping duty investigation on melamine from Qatar, petitioner Cornerstone Chemical Co. argued in a Feb. 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Cornerstone Chemical Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00005).

Responding to an exporter’s comments on remand results (see 2412230074), the government said Feb. 3 that the Commerce Department fully complied with a second remand order by the Court of International Trade (see 2406270043). The trade court had ordered it to further explain its selection of a second mandatory respondent in a separate rate review on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).

A domestic steel trade group brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade Feb. 7 alleging that a mandatory respondent in a tire antidumping duty review “was attempting to pass off [a non-market economy] entity as a market-economy entity” and should have been hit with adverse facts available (United Steel, Paper and Forestry International Union v. United States, CIT # 25-00004).

The Commerce Department reasonably picked the financial statements of San Shing Fastech Corp. to calculate the constructed value profit and indirect selling expenses of respondent Your Standing International in a review of the antidumping duty order on nails from Taiwan, the Court of International Trade held in a Feb. 7 decision. Judge Claire Kelly said the agency appropriately found that San Shing makes "comparable merchandise," has contemporaneous financial statements and sells over 70% of its products to markets outside the U.S.

The U.S. government fully supported the Commerce Department's decision not to use adverse facts available against exporter Can Tho Import Export Seafood Joint Stock Co. in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, the exporter argued in a Feb. 5 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Can Tho Import Export said Commerce properly found that the respondent fully cooperated in the review and that Commerce correctly rejected the petitioner's allegation of a ministerial error (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 24-00082).

The Commerce Department should have deducted a German thermal paper exporter's interest accrued from unpaid antidumping duties from that exporter’s constructed export price, domestic producer Domtar argued Jan. 31 (see 2408010048) (Domtar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00113).