The Commerce Department was allowed to rescind the antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on wood moldings and millwork products from China, the U.S. said July 30 in response to several exporters’ April 25 motion for judgment (see 2404240065) (China Cornici Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00217).

The U.S. opposed Turkish exporter Habas Sinai's motions to intervene as an intervenor in an antidumping case and for an injunction on the liquidation of its entries, arguing that Habas' entries are already liquidated and that the company offers no "good cause" for its delay for timely seeking an injunction from the court (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 24-00018).

The Commerce Department chose the wrong primary surrogate country in its antidumping duty review on aluminum foil from China, multiple exporters argued in a motion for judgment July 29. The department chose Romania, citing minor factors of production and slightly more contemporaneous data, over Malaysia and Bulgaria, which were more accurate, they claimed (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00264).

The Commerce Department should have treated exporter Koehler's unpaid antidumping duty liability as a selling expense that lowered constructed export price (CEP) instead of as an increase to the cost of production, antidumping duty petitioner Domtar Corp. argued at the Court of International Trade. Filing a complaint on Aug. 1, Domtar said CEP should have been lowered since the expenses were "associated with commercial activities in the United States" (Domtar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00113).

In a post-oral argument (see 2407250041) submission, all plaintiffs in a case regarding the scope of an antidumping duty order on steel wheels from China again pushed back against the government, saying that DOJ was misrepresenting communications during the order’s original investigation (Asia Wheel v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00096).

An aluminum foil importer added its own motion for judgment to a stack of cases, primarily coming from the foil and solar panel industries, challenging the Commerce Department’s alleged overemphasis on only one or two factors out of the five used to analyze a product’s country of origin in evasion investigations (see 2407030064, 2406140059 and 2401230041) (Hanon Systems Alabama Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00013).

The Commerce Department “misunderstood” a court order to explain why an industry support calculation didn’t involve double-counting, an importer said July 26 in a reply to the government (Tenaris Bay City v. U.S., CIT # 22-00343).

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo rejecting the Chevron principle of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes doesn't call for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to revisit a decision sustaining the sanctions designation of former Afghan government official Mir Rahman Rahmani and his son, Hafi Ajmal Rahmani, the U.S. said this week (Mir Rahman Rahmani v. Janet Yellen, D.D.C. # 24-00285).

The Commerce Department switched the basis on which it found the Korean government's full allotment of emissions permits under the Korean Emissions Trading System (K-ETS) was specific. Submitting its remand results under protest on July 31, Commerce said the full allotment of the permits was de facto specific after the Court of International Trade rejected the idea that the full allotment was de jure specific (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00170).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 31 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty scope case after denying a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc of the court's decision to include dual-stenciled pipe in the scope of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (see 2407240048). The AD order's scope language includes standard pipe but excluded line pipe, and exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co.'s dual-stenciled pipes fit the industry specifications for both line and standard pipe. Two of the three judges deciding the case found that "meeting an additional specification" for line pipe "does not strip away the qualification of these pipes as standard pipes" (see 2405150027) (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).