The Commerce Department erred in using adverse facts available related to exporter The Ancientree Cabinet Co.'s alleged receipt of benefits from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, Ancientree argued in a Jan. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Ancientree said it demonstrated that neither it nor its U.S. customers used the EBCP (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00223).

Various exporters led by Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. challenged the Commerce Department's antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on aluminum foil from China at the Court of International Trade (Hangzhou Five Star Aluminum Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00231) (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00228).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Nine different companies filed a total of 18 nearly identical complaints at the Court of International Trade on Jan. 13 contesting the Commerce Department's antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on aluminum extrusions from China. All the cases contest a part of Commerce's final scope decision in the proceedings, which found that the agency had the "legal authority to include within the scope of investigation, and did in fact include, 'inputs' to imported merchandise, as opposed to the actual imported merchandise itself" (Daikin Comfort Technologies Manufacturing v. United States, CIT #s 24-00250, -252).

Nebraska resident Byungmin Chae will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit his second lawsuit challenging his results of the April 2018 customs broker license exam, he said in a notice of appeal. The Court of International Trade dismissed the suit after finding that it was precluded by Chae's first case challenging the test (see 2411130013). Chae is seeking credit for one question on the exam to cross the threshold of 75% correct in order to qualify as a customs broker (Byungmin Chae v. United States, CIT # 24-00086).

Domestic producers led by Dupont Teijin Films joined the U.S. government (see 2412090058) in defending the Commerce Department in another missed deadline case, calling an exporter slapped with an adverse facts available rate “careless” and “inattentive” (Jindal Poly Films v. U.S., CIT # 24-00053).

CBP reversed its finding that importer Zinus evaded the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China on remand at the Court of International Trade. CBP made the decision after incorporating a scope ruling from the Commerce Department finding that seven models of metal and wood platform beds imported by Zinus aren't covered by the AD order (Zinus v. United States, CIT # 23-00272).

Indian aluminum sheet exporter Hindalco Industries brought a complaint Jan. 10 to the Court of International Trade, saying the Commerce Department wrongly found to be specific programs by which Hindalco had been provided bauxite mining rights and coal and bauxite by the government of India for less-than-adequate remuneration (Hindalco Industries v. United States, CIT # 24-00234).

The Commerce Department engaged in a "fishing expedition" during the 2022 review of the countervailing duty order on phosphate fertilizer from Morocco, seeking information on potential subsidies "without a scintilla of evidence" indicating that any countervailable benefits existed, exporter OCP argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Jan. 13, OCP argued that Commerce went beyond its statutory authority and "should never have investigated potential subsidies based on information provided by OCP" (OCP v. United States, CIT # 24-00227).

Plaintiff tomato exporter Bioparques de Occidente, the U.S. and defendant-intervenor the Florida Tomato Exchange each supported Jan. 7 the Commerce Department’s redetermination on remand in a case involving a 27-year-old antidumping duty investigation after a consolidated plaintiff opposed it (see 2412040052) (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00204).