Exporter The Ancientree Co. failed to timely raise a ministerial error allegation regarding an adjustment to its U.S. price in an antidumping duty review, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 24. Judge Mark Barnett said that the Commerce Department's regulations required Ancientree to identify any ministerial errors present in the preliminary results and make all relevant arguments about them in its administrative case brief -- something the company failed to do.

The International Trade Commission published notices in the Oct. 25 Federal Register on the following AD/CVD injury, Section 337 patent or other trade proceedings (any notices that warrant a more detailed summary will be in another ITT article):

The Commerce Department is setting new countervailing duty cash deposit requirements for imports of disposable aluminum containers, pans, trays, and lids from China (C-570-171) after finding illegal subsidization of Chinese producers in the preliminary determination of its CVD investigation. Suspension of liquidation and cash deposit requirements take retroactive effect as of July 30, 2024, due to Commerce's finding of critical circumstances for all Chinese companies.

The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Oct. 25 on AD/CVD proceedings:

A syringe importer said Oct. 23 that, without an injunction on a new 100% tariff on needles from China, it must either “discontinue 95% of business or suffer non-recoupable damages.” In response, the U.S. said that it had enough money to absorb the duties -- for example, by cutting its CEO's pay (Retractable Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 24-00185).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 24 said exporter The Ancientree Co. failed to timely raise its ministerial error allegation in an antidumping review on Chinese cabinets, finding that the company didn't file the allegation until after the final results even though the error was present in the preliminary findings. The company said its U.S. price should have been adjusted to account for an alleged subsidy it received from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program that was countervailed in the companion CVD proceeding. Judge Mark Barnett held that none of the exceptions to exhaustion applied.

The Florida Department of Health won’t pursue enforcement against TV stations for running an ad supporting a state pro-choice measure, said a DOH filing Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. However, DOH's filing said the ad relayed dangerous false information about the availability of abortions in Florida and so the First Amendment doesn't protect it. “The Constitution does not grant individuals a right to spread false information about the availability of lifesaving medical services,” said the DOH brief. In an affidavit submitted with the filing, a DOH official says the state doesn’t plan to prosecute TV stations over the ad. “The Department is currently unaware of any harm that has arisen from the airing of the ‘Caroline’ commercial,” said the statement from Cassandra Pasley, Florida DOH chief of staff. “Therefore, the Department is not moving forward with an enforcement action under these circumstances.” The stations aren’t facing the threat of enforcement and DOH never directly targeted Floridians Protecting Freedom (FPF) -- the group behind the ad and the lawsuit against Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo -- so FPF doesn’t have standing, DOH argued. Although FPF has said DOH's letters prompted one TV station to drop the ad, FPF hasn’t proven that, DOH said. The FPF ad provides false information because in it a woman says that her doctors knew that if she didn’t end her pregnancy she would die and that Florida has banned abortion in cases like hers. “Florida law expressly permits abortion when the procedure is ‘necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life,'” the DOH filing said. The ad is “an out-and-out falsehood” that could lead vulnerable women in the state to “refrain from seeking lifesaving medical treatment or attempt to obtain such treatment in more dangerous ways because of the commercial’s lies,” the DOH filings said. FPF has presented testimony from physicians in previous court filings saying that under the narrow language of Florida’s abortion laws, the person shown in the ad wouldn't have been able to get a legal abortion. She has terminal cancer and needed treatment to prolong her life, which required termination of the pregnancy. “Because Caroline’s diagnosis was terminal, neither the cancer treatment the doctors wished to provide her, nor the abortion itself, could in fact save Caroline’s life or treat an immediately emergent issue, and thus would not qualify under the narrow existing exceptions to abortion under Florida law,” FPF said. The DOH disputed FPF’s argument and said the cancer information isn't included in the ad. “The fact that an individual will eventually succumb to some other illness does not prevent a doctor in Florida from providing lifesaving care to a pregnant woman,” the DOH filing said. The court should deny the request for a preliminary injunction, but if one is granted, it should expire on Election Day, when the ballot amendment will be decided, it added.

CBP's Machinery Center of Excellence and Expertise conducted targeting efforts resulting in the seizure of infant products valued at just over $61,000 that contained high lead paint content and choking hazards, the agency announced Oct. 23. In July, the center targeted a shipment with cargo descriptions of luggage carts, metal furniture mountings and “other” seats headed for Memphis. Upon inspecting the shipment, import specialists and Port of Memphis CBP officers found the items were strollers, swings and highchairs for infants.

In remand results, the Commerce Department assigned four Mexican tomato exporters an adverse facts available dumping margin of 273.43% for a 1996 investigation that has been suspended for 22 years. The department, which resumed its inquiry in 2019, said that those exporters -- one of whom it couldn't even track down -- had failed to participate in verification to the best of their ability (Bioparques de Occidente v. U.S., CIT # 19-00204).

The Commerce Department published notices in the Federal Register Oct. 23 on the following AD/CV duty proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CV duty rates, scope, affected firms or effective dates will be detailed in another ITT article):