The Commerce Department erred in changing the date of sale for respondent Toyo Kohan Co.'s U.S. transactions in the 2022-23 review of the antidumping duty order on diffusion-annealed nickel-plated flat-rolled steel from Japan, the company said in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. The exporter said Commerce "did not justify" its change from using the date of invoice as the date of sale to using the shipment date from Japan as the date of sale (Toyo Kohan Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00261).

In comments on remand results, plaintiffs led by tire exporter YC Rubber said that the Commerce Department based its respondent selection for a 2016-2017 antidumping duty review on only a subset of mandatory respondent Kenda Rubber’s entries even though its practice requires consideration of all entries (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).

The U.S. Dec. 16 supported its motion to dismiss the amended complaint of aluminum rod importer Prysmian Cables and Systems, saying that the importer’s arguments failed to state a claim, aren’t subject to the “continuing violation doctrine” and don’t have a six-year statute of limitations (Prysmian Cables and Systems v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).

The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) improperly rejected 63 Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests filed by California-based importer Mirror Metals, the company argued in a Dec. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Mirror Metals said that if BIS applied the standards laid out in its regulations, the "only reasonable conclusion" it could have drawn was that the company "cannot obtain the subject steel in the U.S. market in a sufficient quantity or quality, on a timely basis to replace the steel it currently imports" (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT # 24-00260).

The Court of International Trade will be closed on Dec. 24 by order of Chief Judge Mark Barnett, the court announced.

Importer Seneca Foods Corp. will appeal a Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's rejection of eight Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests, the company said in a notice of appeal (see 2410240029). In the decision, the trade court found that the rejections were backed by substantial evidence and in line with agency practice. The court also sustained Commerce's focus on "prospective evidence of steel production" and rejected Seneca's claim that Commerce's approach gives "short shrift to course-of-dealing evidence" that suggests that an objecting U.S. company won't actually deliver the goods (Seneca Foods Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00243).

Importer Ideavillage Products Corp. on Dec. 19 voluntarily dismissed at the Court of International Trade its customs suit regarding the tariff classification of its shavers and replacement cutting heads. The company challenged CBP's classification of the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8510.30.0000, dutiable at 4.2%, claiming they should be classified under subheading 8510.10.0000, free of duty. Counsel for Ideavillage declined to comment (Ideavillage Products Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00332).

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).