The Commerce Department published notices in the Federal Register July 28 on the following AD/CV duty proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CV duty rates, scope, affected firms or effective dates will be detailed in another ITT article):
The Commerce Department is beginning an anti-circumvention inquiry on allegations that prestressed concrete steel wire strand made in the U.S. using high carbon steel wire from Mexico is circumventing the antidumping duty order on prestressed concrete steel wire strand from Mexico (A-201-831), the agency said in a notice.
The Commerce Department will consider a potential new exemption for certain off-grid solar panels from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on crystaline silicon photovoltaic cells from China (A-570-979/C-570-980), it said in a notice initiating a changed circumstances review. The proposed exemption was requested by Source Global, and is purportedly not opposed by U.S. producers of solar panels.
The Commerce Department has released the preliminary results of its antidumping duty administrative review on citric acid and certain citrate salts from Belgium (A-423-813). The agency preliminarily calculated a 8.22% AD rate for the only company under review, Citribel nv. If the agency's finding is continued in the final results, importers of subject merchandise from Citribel entered July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022, will be assessed AD at importer-specific rates. Any changes to rates for Citribel would take effect on the date of publication in the Federal Register of the final results of this review, due in November.
The Commerce Department has issued the preliminary results of a countervailing duty administrative review of corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea (C-580-879). This review covers subject merchandise from the exporters under review entered during the period Jan. 1, 2021, through Dec. 31, 2021.
The Commerce Department has released the preliminary results of its antidumping duty administrative review on steel nails from South Korea (A-580-874). Rates calculated in this review will be used to set assessment rates for importers of subject merchandise from four producers and exporters entered July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022.
The Commerce Department has released the preliminary results of its antidumping duty administrative review on monosodium glutamate from Indonesia (A-560-826). In the final results of this review, Commerce may set assessment rates for subject merchandise from two companies entered Nov. 1, 2021, through Oct. 31, 2022.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 28 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Colombia, Canada, Argentina, Mexico and Brazil recently announced antidumping and countervailing duty actions and decisions on certain products from mainland China, the Hong Kong Trade Development Council reported July 27.
U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett for Maryland in Baltimore, in a July 21 memorandum opinion, granted the motion of three colleges to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction a complaint by Bloosurf, a wireless internet provider to low-income, rural communities on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. The company sued to block the schools from selling their FCC-approved educational broadcast service licenses to T-Mobile, a direct competitor. The judge denied as moot Bloosurf’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The dismissal is without prejudice, with leave to amend the complaint by Aug. 21. The “overriding issue” in the motion to dismiss from the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Wor-Wic Community College and Salisbury University is whether Bloosurf’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief “arise under federal law,” said the opinion. Bloosurf doesn’t precisely indicate what cause of action it asserts as the basis for its requests for injunctive and declaratory relief, and its complaint raises contractual claims but doesn’t “present a federal cause of action,” it said. Throughout the complaint, Bloosurf describes the case as an effort to prevent the termination of the EBS lease, and to withhold consent to the T-Mobile sale, it said. “To the extent Bloosurf invokes FCC regulations, it does so only as one of the grounds on which it withheld its consent to the transfer and continues to object to the proposed sale, not as an independent cause of action,” it said. The complaint is “best understood” as seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the basis that the termination of the EBS lease and the sale of the universities’ underlying licenses would violate the lease, it said: “These claims sound in contract, a quintessential field of state law.” Bloosurf argues the federal issue is the “gravamen of the case,” but its complaint “belies this broad assertion,” said the opinion. A “holistic reading” of the complaint suggests Bloosurf “is chiefly concerned about the effect the proposed sale would have on its network, its contracts, and its business,” it said. “In sum,” Bloosurf’s challenge to the proposed sale doesn’t necessarily depend on resolution of a substantial question of federal law, it said. As Bloosurf’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief don’t necessarily raise issues of federal law, “this case falls outside the ambit of this court’s subject matter jurisdiction,” it said.