The Commerce Department stuck with its determination in the 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Italy that exporter Dalmine and its Romanian input provider Silcotub shouldn't be collapsed (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. United States, CIT # 24-00039).

The Commerce Department improperly found that exporter Balkrishna Industries didn't benefit from the Advanced Authorization Scheme in India as part of the 2022 review of the countervailing duty order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from India, petitioner Titan Tire Corp. argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 20, Titan Tire said Commerce erred in accepting a "post hoc and incomplete examination" of the program performed by the Indian government (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00207).

Domestic producers do have standing to bring their case challenging emergency duty relief granted to solar cell importers to the trade court, those producers, led by Auxin Solar, said Dec. 19 (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 denied importer Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel's bid to amend a preliminary injunction in an antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion case to not enjoin the liquidation of steel trailer wheels that the Commerce Department has found to fall outside the scope of the relevant AD/CVD orders. Judge Gary Katzmann held that Lionshead failed to "demonstrate changed circumstances that warrant the modification of the preliminary injunction."

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 20 sustained the Commerce Department's use of surrogate financial statements from Emirates Sleep Systems Private Limited in the antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Vietnam, despite various objections from exporters led by Ashley Furniture Industries. Judge Timothy Reif said Commerce reasonably found the statements to be complete, publicly available and the best information available.

U.S. solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy asked the Court of International Trade for another 3,500 words to reply to arguments from the government and solar cell exporters and importers in the pair's suit on the Commerce Department's duty pause on solar cells and modules from four Southeast Asian countries. Auxin and Concept Clean Energy said opposing counsel either consented or took no position to the motion (Auxin Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00274).

In response to importer Mitsubishi Power Americas’ motion for judgment, the U.S. filed a cross-motion for judgment saying the importers’ products are filters and don’t fall under the “basket provision” for other catalytic reactors (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. U.S., CIT #21-00573).

The Commerce Department appropriately found that details about U.S. seafood seller Luscious Seafood's wholesaling operations don't support the company's claim that it was a bona fide wholesaler of the domestic like product, the U.S. argued in a reply brief filed last week at the Court of International Trade. The government said that, as a result, Commerce permissibly found Luscious' request for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam to be invalid (Luscious Seafood v. United States, CIT # 24-00069).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 18 upheld the Commerce Department's decision on remand to drop the countervailing duty on exporter Risen Energy Co. related to its alleged receipt of benefits under China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. Judge Jane Restani said the move was in line with the court's prior decision.

The Commerce Department adjusted exporter Trina Solar’s U.S. price in an antidumping duty review for subsidies from three programs it had countervailed in an accompanying countervailing duty review, finding, after remand, that the programs were export-contingent. It again declined to adjust Trina’s U.S. price by three other programs (Trina Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00213).