The Court of International Trade should deny steel manufacturer Saha Thai's request for a revised dumping margin because the company failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, defendant-intervenors Wheatland Tube and Nucor Tubular said in a March 3 brief (Saha Thai Steel Pipe v. U.S., CIT # 21-00627).
CBP lacked sufficient evidence to begin an Enforce and Protect Act investigation on Phoenix Metal and then fabricated a conclusion that the company transshipped Chinese soil pipe through Cambodia, Phoenix said in a March 2 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Phoenix Metal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00048).
Taiwanese exporter Inventec Solar Energy Corp. (ISEC) had constructive knowledge that sales to JA Solar USA were destined for the U.S., so those sales should be included as U.S. sales in the antidumping duty rate calculated for ISEC in an administrative review on solar products from Taiwan, the Commerce Department said in March 2 remand results (JA Solar International v. United States, CIT # 21-00514).
The Court of International Trade on March 3 granted two plaintiff-intervenors' motion for a preliminary injunction stopping liquidation for their entries, rejecting government arguments that the injunction would have impermissibly expanded the issues in the case. Citing past CIT judgments, Judge Mark Barnett held that the enlargement concept is only reserved for cases where an intervenor adds new legal claims to those already before the court.
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 Court of International Trade should allow four domestic steel producers to intervene on the side of the International Trade Commission in a case contesting the ITC's injury finding in an antidumping duty investigation on hot-rolled steel imports from Turkey, those producers argued in a Feb. 27 brief at the Court of International Trade (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. United States, CIT # 22-00349)
The Court of International Trade in a March 3 order upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping case which slashed the dumping margin for respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipe Industries after the agency accepted the company's answers to the Section A questionnaire response originally rejected as untimely filed. The document was turned in late due to technical complications as a result of firm Barnes Richardson's switch to a work-from-home environment. The court remanded the issue since Commerce gave itself numerous extensions while rejecting the two-hour late submission.
The World Trade Organization's multiparty interim appeal arbitration arrangement (MPIA), an alternative to the defunct Appellate Body, proved to be "operational" after it ensured the right of parties in an antidumping duties dispute to appeal dispute panel reports and to receive a "final, binding ruling, without loopholes to block the process," Geneva Graduate Institute law professor Joost Pauwelyn said in a Feb. 27 blog post. Pauwelyn said MPIA led to the resolution of a recent dispute on frozen fries "without blockage," which preserved “the system's 'binding character and two levels of adjudication.'"
The Court of International Trade should deny a motion for a preliminary injunction by two plaintiff-intervenors because granting that injunction would expand the case beyond its original issues in violation of Supreme Court rulings, DOJ argued in its Feb. 28 response at the Court of International Trade. By requesting an injunction that covers entries not initially subject to the proceeding filed by Jilin Bright, plaintiff-intervenors seek to expand the issues covered by the proceeding, DOJ argued (Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00336).