Petitioner The Mosaic Company and exporter OCP again traded briefs at the Court of International Trade regarding a countervailing duty review on Moroccan-origin phosphate fertilizer. Each defended its own prior motion for judgment (see 2408120049) (The Mosaic Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00246).

In a March 5 complaint before the Court of International Trade, German importer MTU Maintenance Hannover brought a single claim disputing CBP’s classification of a mid-frame assembly used in GE Aerospace’s LM2500 gas turbine engine. It said it had just sent the U.S.-origin product back for repairs (MTU Maintenance Hannover v. United States, CIT # 25-00023).

The term “butt-weld” is ambiguous, and the Commerce Department was right to find steel branch outlets are covered by an antidumping duty order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled March 6.

In a March 4 complaint before the Court of International Trade, petitioner Bio-Lab again took issue with the Commerce Department’s surrogate selection in its antidumping duty review of chlorinated isocyanurates, or pool chlorine, from China (see 2407190046) (Bio-Lab, Inc. v. United States, CIT # 25-00054).

In remand results released March 4, the Commerce Department rescinded a 2019 administrative review of a countervailing duty order with regard to Dominican aluminum extrusion exporter Kingtom Aluminio (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 22-00079)

Commerce should show broad deference to the "intent of the petitioner" when assessing scope rulings, a domestic petitioner argued to the Court of International Trade on March 3. The petitioner was supporting the U.S. in cases involving antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on freight rail couplers, saying that the case’s plaintiff, an exporter, had incorrectly argued that its goods were beyond the scope of the investigation due to a substantial transformation (Wabtec Corporation v. U.S., CIT #s 23-00160, -00161).

In Feb. 27 oral arguments, Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif grappled with whether the Commerce Department reasonably selected a broader, less-specific plywood price dataset over a smaller, more specific one. He also dealt with the department’s application of adverse facts available to multilayered wood flooring review respondents after a finding of government control based on the Chinese government’s “deficient” questionnaire responses (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00136).

The date range proposed in a consent motion enjoining liquidation of Thai-origin truck and bus tires extends into November 2025 because that will be the end of the first administrative review period under an antidumping duty order, the U.S. explained in response to a court query (United Steel, Paper and Forestry International Union v. United States, CIT # 25-00004).

Opposing remand results by the Commerce Department (see 2410310052) -- which saw a company's antidumping duty rate rise from 31.7% to 37.2% in a review -- that company, mobile access equipment exporter Zhejiang Dingli Machinery, pushed back against Commerce’s use of a petitioner’s freight costs data. That data was composed of only price quotations, not actual transactions, the exporter argued (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00152).

The Commerce Department properly chose not to use domestic producer Edsal’s desired surrogate in a review of boltless steel shelves from Thailand, the agency said in response to Edsal’s motion for judgment (see 2412100059) (Edsal Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00108).