Judge Mark Barnett of the Court of International Trade indicated in March 19 oral arguments that he is leaning toward remanding a case about the application of an adverse facts available rate to an exporter that missed an unusual 10 a.m. filing deadline by five hours (Cambria Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00007).
Court of International Trade activity
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public March 21 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to rely on "other information" instead of polling the industry to calculate industry support for the antidumping duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina. But Judge Claire Kelly sent back the industry support decision due to accuracy concerns on the data Commerce relied on, including on whether "finishing operations were counted twice."
The Court of International Trade on March 21 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a countervailing duty case in which it "changed the way it calculated ocean freight." Since no party objected to the new calculation, Judge Jane Restani sustained the remand.
Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp. on March 22 moved to treat its submission at the Court of International Trade in support of its motion to unseal and unredact the record as a "highly sensitive document" in its case contesting its listing on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The exporter said it doesn't waive any claim that certain parts of the record "should eventually be unsealed," nor does it waive any argument that its requested documents shouldn't be treated as confidential information under the court's protective order (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The Court of International Trade on March 21 reassigned three cases to Judge Jane Restani.
The Court of International Trade on March 20 denied U.S. company Deer Park Glycine's bid to consolidate its two cases before the trade court. One case is challenging the Commerce Department's scope ruling which excluded calcium glycinate from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on glycine from India, Japan, Thailand and China, while the other contests Commerce's rejection of a second scope ruling request on the same product.
The Commerce Department released the final version of regulations on March 22 that will make various key changes in the administration of antidumping and countervailing duty regulations. The changes take effect April 24.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP reversed its finding that four importers evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China on remand at the Court of International Trade. Submitting its remand results on March 20, CBP said that since the Commerce Department reversed its covered merchandise scope decision in a separate trade court case, the importers' goods no longer constitute "covered merchandise" and thus did not evade the AD/CVD orders (Far East American v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00213).
The Court of International Trade in an opinion made public March 21 sustained parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's decision to start the antidumping duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina. Judge Claire Kelly upheld Commerce's decision to rely on "other information" instead of polling the industry to calculate industry support for the investigation. However, the judge sent back the agency's finding that the data relied on "accurately reflected industry support, including whether finishing operations were counted twice," in light of evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, led by Tenaris Bay City.