The Court of International Trade on Feb. 8, in a case brought by domestic petitioners, sustained the Commerce Department’s finding that a Chinese wood flooring exporter that had refused to participate as a 2018-2019 antidumping duty review’s mandatory respondent was still eligible for separate rate status. But the court's decision to allow Commerce to use adverse facts available against the exporter meant the review’s non-individually investigated separate rate respondents saw their rates jump from zero percent to 42.57%.
Court of International Trade activity
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 8 sustained the Commerce Department's finding that Chinese wood flooring exporter Fusong Jinlong Group was eligible for a separate rate despite its refusal due to the COVID-19 pandemic to be a mandatory respondent in a 2018-2019 AD review. However, the court allowed Commerce's application of AFA to the exporter, leaving the exporter's AD at the China-wide 85.13% while raising the review's non-individually reviewed respondents' rate from zero to 42.57%. The department made the change under protest after the court found it was treating similarly situated entities differently and hadn’t addressed Jinlong’s separate rate certification on the merits.
Importer Vanguard National Trailer Corp. challenged CBP's finding that the company evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese truck wheels, filing a complaint on Feb. 6 at the Court of International Trade. The importer said CBP improperly assessed AD/CVD on its entries from before May 12, 2021 -- the date on which the Commerce Department started a scope inquiry on whether Vanguard's truck wheels, imported from Thai manufacturer Asia Wheel, were covered by the AD/CVD orders (Vanguard National Trailer Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00034).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 7 upheld CBP's decision to reverse its finding that importer Norca Industries Co. and International Piping & Procurement Group evaded the antidumping duty order on pipe fittings from China. The negative evasion finding came after CBP made a covered merchandise referral to the Commerce Department on remand. The referral found that the importers' carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings were outside the order's scope.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
An importer said Feb. 7 that CBP wrongfully prevented a weight loss dietary supplement from entering the U.S. (Unichem Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 24-00033).
U.S. priorities during the World Trade Organization's upcoming 13th Ministerial Conference should center on extending the moratorium on e-commerce duties and advancing the second wave of talks on curbing harmful fisheries subsidies, witnesses said at a Feb. 7 hearing of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade.
The Commerce Department still hasn't proven that Hyundai received a subsidy in the form of a “direct transfer of funds” from the South Korean government due to the country’s cap and trade program, the exporter said Feb. 5 in comments on the department’s remand results (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S. , CIT # 22-00170).
Importers seeking reclassification of their 3D-printing pens as toys rather than machinery consolidated their cases Feb. 5 at the Court of International Trade (Quantified Operations Limited v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00178).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: