The Commerce Department on Dec. 2 issued the preliminary results of its antidumping duty administrative review on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea (A-580-809). After Commerce preliminarily found that subject goods from South Korea were sold at prices below normal value, the agency preliminarily set AD duty rates for all 24 producers and exporters under review, except Nexteel, which the agency said did not undersell subject goods during the review period. Rates calculated in this review will be used to set assessment rates for importers of subject merchandise from these producers and exporters that was entered November 2020 through October 2021.
The Commerce Department on Dec. 2 released the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on corrosion-resistant steel products from China (A-570-026). Commerce found that Metalco S.A., the only company subject to this administrative review, is part of the China-wide entity because it did not file a separate rate application, assigning the company the China-wide entity rate of 199.43%. Any subject merchandise from Metalco entered during the period July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021, will be assessed AD duties at the 199.43% China-wide rate. A 199.43% cash deposit rate takes effect for Metalco for entries from the company on or after Dec. 5.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 2 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Nov. 29 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The Commerce Department is setting new antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam -- though collection is on hold per a presidential proclamation and subsequent Commerce regulation -- after finding imports from the four countries are circumventing AD/CVD orders on solar cells from China in the preliminary determination of an anti-circumvention inquiry.
The Commerce Department is setting new antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam -- though collection is on hold per a presidential proclamation and subsequent Commerce regulation -- after finding imports from the four countries are circumventing AD/CVD orders on solar cells from China in the preliminary determination of an anti-circumvention inquiry.
Importers and exporters of solar cells and modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam must complete and sign certifications within the next several weeks for any entries after April 1, 2022, to avoid antidumping and countervailing duties imposed in the preliminary determination of an anti-circumvention inquiry released by the Commerce Department on Dec. 2.
The Commerce Department published notices in the Federal Register Dec. 1 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 released the preliminary results of its antidumping duty administrative review on strontium chromate from Austria (A-433-813). In the final results of this review, Commerce will set assessment rates for subject merchandise for the only company under review, Habich GmbH, entered Nov. 1, 2020, through Oct. 31, 2021.
Monday’s prehearing conference in the FTC’s lawsuit to block Meta’s Within Unlimited buy on antitrust grounds was moved to 10 a.m. PST from 9:30 a.m., said a text-only clerk’s order entered Wednesday (docket 5:22-cv-04325) at the U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose. Both sides requested the conference in a joint stipulation Nov. 15. The FTC and Meta tried to reach agreement on procedural and logistical issues “to facilitate the efficient presentation of evidence at the preliminary injunction hearing” scheduled to begin Dec. 8, said the stipulation. They said they agreed there are “specific issues regarding the procedures and presentation of evidence on which the parties would benefit from the Court’s guidance.”