CBP continued to find on remand that importer Skyview Cabinet USA evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. After having the case returned to the agency following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., CBP allowed Skyview to submit rebuttal factual information to confidential information it didn't originally have access to, though it ultimately came to the same conclusion (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, CIT # 22-00080).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
U.S. Steel Corp. moved for leave to join importer California Steel Industries' case challenging rejections of its requests for Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions as amicus curiae, after its efforts to intervene in the suit were thwarted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (California Steel Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00015).
The government said in a May 20 status update that, for a case regarding an exporter’s adverse facts available rate after COVID-19 prevented in-person verification, the Commerce Department's remand redetermination will be out by Aug. 20 (PT. Asia Pacific Fibers v. U.S., CIT #22-00007).
A Chinese solar panel exporter said May 15 that the U.S. claim that adverse facts available findings for the Chinese government’s Export Buyers’ Credit Program are directed at the Chinese government, not individual exporters, is a “false narrative” (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00153).
The Court of International Trade on May 20 entered stipulated judgment in a pair of customs suits brought by Home Depot U.S.A., lowering the duty rate on the retail giant's imported residential door knobs packaged with at least one deadbolt, from 5.7% to 3.9% (Home Depot U.S.A. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 14-00122, -00123).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said on May 20 that the Court of International Trade was wrong to impose a 50% threshold in determining whether demand for a processed agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties.
AD petitioners Bio-Lab, Innovative Water Care and Occidental Chemical Corporation merged their challenge to an antidumping duty review on chlorinated isocyanurates from China at the Court of International Trade with a similar challenge from Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. and Heze Huayi Chemical Co. (Bio-Lab, et al. v. United States, CIT # 24-00024) (Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00026).
Chinese truck and bus tire exporters subject to a nearly 5-year-old administrative review that was delayed by an ongoing court challenge should still have kept their records while the litigation played out (see 2402060054), Judge Mark Barnett said during oral argument in the case. During the review, the Commerce Department removed separate rate status for four exporters who refused to serve as mandatory respondents because they said they hadn’t kept the necessary records (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).
A Chinese exporter of passenger vehicle and light truck tires said in a May 14 complaint that the Commerce Department repeatedly made a mathematical error in an antidumping duty review by constructing input freight shipment cost without considering distance (Giti Tire Global Trading PTE. LTD. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00083).