The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Spain, DOJ said July 31, arguing that respondent Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy (SGRE) failed to show that it shouldn't be subject to an AFA rate (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. U.S., CIT # 21-00449).
A sunset review of an antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey doesn't render a request for a changed circumstances review meaningless, Turkish exporter Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) said in a July 28 brief opposing motions to dismiss at the Court of International Trade (Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00350).
The Court of International Trade in a July 28 order upheld CBP's finding on remand that importer Diamond Tools Technology did not evade the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from China. The evasion finding applies to DTT's imports of diamond sawblades assembled in Thailand but made with Chinese cores and segments before Dec. 1, 2017.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The EU General Court in a pair of July 26 orders annulled the sanctions acts listing Viktor Pshonka, a former Ukrainian prosecutor general, and his son, Artem, a former Ukrainian lawmaker, according to an unofficial translation. The elder Pshonka was originally sanctioned in 2014 for embezzling Ukrainian public funds, according to the EU Sanctions blog. The blog noted that the court said the European Council failed to show that the Pshonkas' rights to judicial protection were respected by Ukrainian authorities during criminal proceedings on which the council relied.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Importer PrimeSource Building Products on July 26 asked the Supreme Court to take up its case contesting President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products, urging the High Court to settle ambiguity in statutes delegating "vast legislative power to the Executive in favor of restraining the delegation" (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Sup. Ct. # 23-69).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A group of retail trade groups, led by the American Apparel and Footwear Association, said that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative failed to adequately respond to comments when imposing its lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China. Submitting an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the massive case against the duties, the retail representatives argued that USTR illegally relied on the president's discretion as a response to the comments, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (HMTX Industries, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).