The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 denied a motion seeking to dissolve an existing injunction against liquidation and another seeking to impose a new one in a case involving the antidumping duty rates for several Indian quartz countertop exporters.
Court of International Trade activity
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 upheld the Commerce Department's decision to revert to the calculation of a previously used land benchmark as part of a countervailing duty review. Judge Jane Restani said that since no parties contest the move, the court will sustain the agency's third remand results.
A paint sprayer company argued that the parts of its spray nozzles that control the flow of liquid paint are heat sinks, and are excluded from an antidumping duty order on aluminum extrusions from China (Wagner Spray Tech Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00241).
The Commerce Department made no changes to the final results of its countervailing duty administrative review on exporters of South Korean carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate, after a second remand in a case challenging the results of the 2018 review (Nucor Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 21-00182).
The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury finding on mattresses from a host of countries despite finding that the commission committed various errors in its assessment of whether the market industry is segmented.
Exporter Kumar Industries will appeal a November Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's assignment of a 13.61% adverse facts available dumping rate to the exporter based on its "inadequate explanations" regarding one of its partners ownership interests in two unnamed companies (see 2311270005). In the decision, the court sustained the rate, issued as part of the first antidumping duty review on glycine from India, finding that Kumar prevented Commerce from conducting a proper affiliate analysis (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00622).
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 19 opinion denied two quartz surface product exporters' bid to partially dissolve an existing injunction on liquidation after finding the companies did not make a "sufficient showing" for the motion. Concurrently, Judge Mark Barnett denied antidumping petitioner Cambria's motion for an injunction on liquidation, which was filed following the consolidation of its action with the exporters' suit so the relevant entries would be covered if the judge granted the motion to dissolve. Barnett denied Cambria's motion related to the entries for which liquidation is currently enjoined since he denied the motion to dissolve the injunction. The judge also denied Cambria's motion in relation to the entries not currently enjoined because the motion was untimely filed.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 18 upheld the Commerce Department's use of a 0.8 threshold for Cohen's d test to analyze masked dumping, finding Commerce's explanation for the methodology reasonable.
The Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 18 that Commerce could use one antidumping duty review mandatory respondent’s third-country sales to calculate another’s AD when no better information was available. The opinion comes at the end of a long CIT case challenging the Commerce Department’s 2020 administrative review of the AD order on certain oil county tubular goods (OCTG) from Korea, filed by plaintiff Hyundai Steel in May 2022 (see 2205100033).
The Commerce Department didn't meaningfully respond to arguments regarding the specificity of the provision of Korean Allowance Units (KAUs) by the South Korean government's cap-and-trade system in a countervailing duty review, the Court of International Trade ruled on Dec. 18.