Two cases involving the 2021-2022 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from India should be consolidated by the Court of International Trade, AD petitioner Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee told the court in its Nov. 2 consolidation request (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. U.S., CIT # 23-00202; Megaa Moda Private Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00205).

The U.S. and importer Fanuc Robotics America have "reached an agreement in principle" on how to classify all but two models of robots at issue in the the importer's case at the Court of International Trade. Submitting a joint status report on Nov. 3, the parties said that the classification of the remaining two models is "taking the parties much longer than anticipated" due to the age of the models and the retirement of the national import specialist who "assisted with the review of the technical information" in the case (Fanuc Robotics America v. U.S., CIT # 12-00052).

The Commerce Department correctly found that lemon juice exporter Louis Dreyfus Co. (LDC) was not affiliated with its unnamed primary fresh lemon supplier and correctly applied a de minimis rate to LDC, the company said in its Nov. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade, coming on the heels of a similar brief by DOJ (see 2311020024) (Ventura Coastal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00009).

Self-powered, radioluminescent light sources fueled by tritium that importer Trijicon uses to illuminate gun sights are properly classified as "lamps" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9405 "not elsewhere specified or included," the U.S. argued in a cross motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade. The common meaning of the term "lamp," derived from "lexicographic sources and caselaw," shows this to be true, but it's really Trijicon's own communications with its supplier, workers, customers and chief regulator agreeing with this point that win the day for the government, the brief said (Trijicon v. United States, CIT # 22-00040).

The Commerce Department's decision not to give the South Korean government a chance to submit data from the Korean Electric Power Corporation as part of the agency's analysis of the provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration was not backed by substantial evidence, exporter Hyundai Steel Co. argued (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00211).

The Commerce Department added another respondent to the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the agency couldn't limit the review to one mandatory respondent. Tapping exporter Kenda Rubber (China) Co. in its remand results, Commerce calculated an 18.15% dumping margin for the exporter, also leading to a recalculation of the separate AD rate, which now sits at 41.36%, down from 64.57%. The China-wide rate held steady at 87.99% (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, CIT # 19-000069).

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 2 order granted petitioner Sierra Pacific Industries' notice of dismissal in a case involving the final results of the 2021 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada. The case was filed in October and dismissed before a complaint was filed (Sierra Pacific Industries v. United States, CIT # 23-00207).

The Court of International Trade stayed a customs case concerning importer Cambridge Isotope Laboratories' enriched ammonium sulfate isotope until Dec. 11, given that Cambridge is consulting with the relevant antidumping and countervailing duty petitioners for a "partial revocation of the AD/CVD Orders on Ammonium Sulfide from China." Cambridge filed suit to contest CBP's assessment of the AD/CVD on the imports (see 2308300052) (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. United States, CIT # 23-00080).

The Commerce Department correctly found that lemon juice exporter Louis Dreyfus Co. (LDC) was not affiliated with its unnamed primary fresh lemon supplier and correctly applied a de minimis rate to LDC, DOJ said in its Nov. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The brief responded to antidumping duty petitioner Ventura's August motion for judgment (see 2308040029) (Ventura Coastal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00009).

Two importers took to the Court of International Trade to challenge the Commerce Department's final determination that Chinese-origin unfinished pipe fittings that undergo final processing in Vietnam are under the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China. The companies, International Piping & Procurement Group and Norca Industrial Co., said in a pair of complaints that Commerce's analysis, which found that the goods were not substantially transformed in Vietnam, was "flawed" and ignored key evidence (International Piping & Procurement Group v. United States, CIT # 23-00232) (Norca Industrial Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00231).