A listing of recent Commerce Department antidumping and countervailing duty messages posted on CBP's website March 27, along with the case number(s) and CBP message number, is provided below. The messages are available by searching for the listed CBP message number at CBP's ADCVD Search page.
On March 25, the FDA posted new and revised versions of the following Import Alerts on the detention without physical examination of:
The U.S. and Indian frozen shrimp exporter Megaa Moda supported March 7 the Commerce Department’s results on remand of an antidumping duty administrative review (see 2411270055). Finding that Megaa Moda knew certain of its home market sales would be exported required affirmative evidence that the record lacked, they said (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00202).
When the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative asked for comments on policies that reduce U.S. exports, most agricultural trade associations -- and a few companies -- laid out their concerns about tariffs or sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) barriers that prevent their exports from reaching their potential.
On March 14, the FDA posted new and revised versions of the following Import Alerts on the detention without physical examination of:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Commerce Department published notices in the Federal Register March 6 on the following antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CVD rates, scope, affected firms or effective dates will be detailed in another ITT article):
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices March 6 on AD/CVD proceedings:
On March 4, the FDA posted new and revised versions of the following Import Alerts (after not having posted new ones for a number of days) on the detention without physical examination of:
The Commerce Department properly chose not to use domestic producer Edsal’s desired surrogate in a review of boltless steel shelves from Thailand, the agency said in response to Edsal’s motion for judgment (see 2412100059) (Edsal Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00108).