The Commerce Department unlawfully chose to break with its past practice of not considering subsidies provided by the Russian government prior to April 1, 2002, in a countervailing duty review on phosphate fertilizers, respondent JSC Apatit argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Jan. 9, Apatit argued that Commerce failed to apply this cut-off date when analyzing whether mining rights were provided to the company for less than adequate remuneration in the 2022 review of the CVD order (Joint Stock Company Apatit v. United States, CIT # 24-00226).
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "China import").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead.
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., +CBP).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., -ruling).
Singular form: Always use the singular form when doing multi-word terms (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls").
Shortest word form: When you have different word forms in a quoted (multi-word) term, you want to only include the shortest version if it is the last part of the expression (e.g., "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
Importer Florida Power & Light Company argued Jan. 9 that the Commerce Department had unreasonably elevated one country-of-origin factor -- research and development -- in importance above the other four in an antidumping duty review of solar cells from Cambodia (see 2412260039) (BYD (H.K.) Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00221).
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on pentafluoroethane (R-125) -- a gas used in refrigerants -- from China in a decision made public Jan. 10.
The Commerce Department unlawfully found that countervailing duty respondent The Ancientree Cabinet Co. benefited from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty review, importer Craft33 Products argued in a Jan. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Craft33 said it's "one of a number of American firms caught in the crossfire of Commerce's approach to the EBCP and the wider trade war with China" (Craft33 Products v. United States, CIT # 24-00224).
The Commerce Department announced Jan. 8 that, on remand, it was still maintaining use of partial adverse facts available for steel exporter Nippon Steel in a review of hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan. It said it wasn’t enough that the exporter’s affiliate was refusing to provide certain requested information, nor that the exporter was prevented by Japanese law from making provision of that information a contractual obligation of the affiliate (Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00533).
In a Jan. 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade, exporter Zhejiang Dingli Machinery challenged the results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Chinese-origin mobile access equipment (Zhejiang Dingli Machinery v. United States, CIT # 24-00221).
The Commerce Department failed to justify its finding that a subsidy to exporter OCP from a program for relief from tax fines and penalties was de facto specific, the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 8. Remanding the countervailing duty investigation on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco for a second time, Judge Timothy Stanceu said the agency's altered defense of its specificity finding was no less "absurd" than it was in the first go-round.
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 8 denied the government's bid for default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner and CEO Doris Cheng in a customs penalty case, with Judge Timothy Stanceu taking issue with the U.S. claim for a monetary penalty totaling nearly $3.4 million.
The U.S. and exporter PAO TMK agreed Jan. 8 to dismiss PAO’s case against the Commerce Department’s determination in its Russian seamless pipe countervailing duty investigation. Commerce found in the investigation that PAO received countervailable subsidies through the provision of natural gas for less-than-adequate remuneration and through loans from Russian state-owned banks. The case was stayed in 2021 following a consent motion (see 2112290005) (PAO TMK v. U.S., CIT #21-00531, -00534).
The U.S. Jan. 6 supported the Commerce Department’s final results in an Indian off-road tires countervailing duty review against attacks from petitioner Titan Tire. A mandatory respondent didn’t receive the benefit of import duty exemptions from the Indian government, it said (Titan Tire Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00233).