Exporter Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. failed to obtain the consent of the U.S. before it filed its motion for a statutory injunction against the liquidation of its light-truck spare tire models in an antidumping duty challenge, the Department of Justice argued in an Oct. 13 brief at the Court of International Trade. Rather, counsel for Cheng Shin completely misrepresented DOJ's position, declaring that it had the government's consent for the injunction, when it didn't, DOJ said. Opposing the scope of the injunction, which the court has already granted, DOJ also took issue with the fact that Cheng Shin applied for an "open-ended injunction" (Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #21-00398).

A host of Indian stainless steel flange exporters challenged the Commerce Department's final results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on the subject flanges, in an Oct. 23 complaint at the Court of International Trade. In the complaint's two counts, the exporters are contesting Commerce's determination of the "all other" rate since it was derived using an adverse facts available rate for one of the respondents, and the agency's failure to calculate a dumping margin for respondent Chandan based on its own information instead of relying on AFA (Echjay Forgings Private Limited, et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00542).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released its mandate Oct. 22 for its decision backing the Commerce Department's rejection of data corrections submitted by an antidumping respondent. In August, the Federal Circuit reversed the Court of International Trade's decision, holding that the corrections were not "minor," meaning that Commerce was justified when it originally rejected the revisions and levied an adverse facts available AD duty rate on Goodluck India (see 2108310040). The case involved cold-drawn mechanical tubing from India (Goodluck India Limited v. United States, CIT #18-00162).

Importer Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc.'s telecommunications cables qualify for Section 301 China tariff exclusions and the duties it paid on the cables should be refunded, the importer argued in an Oct. 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade challenging CBP's denial of its protest, which sought to apply a particular exclusion (Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00200).

The Court of International Trade remanded parts and sustained parts of the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping investigation into utility scale wind towers from Canada in an Oct. 22 opinion. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sent back Commerce's decision to reject respondent Marmen's additional cost reconciliation information and use of the average-to-transaction methodology to discover masked dumping, while upholding the agency's weight-average of Marmen's plate costs, use of invoice dates as the date of sale, use of Marmen's reported sales of tower sections rather than complete towers, and decision not to apply facts otherwise available.

The Labor Department properly considered all of the evidence when it continued to find that a unionized group of former AT&T call center employees are not entitled to trade adjustment assistance for outsourced jobs, the department said in an Oct. 20 reply brief filed at the Court of International Trade. Responding to accusations from the workers, Labor said what plaintiffs failed to do was point to any evidence that Labor failed to consider, the brief said (Communications Workers of America Local 4123, on behalf of Former Employees of AT&T Services, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor, CIT #20-00075).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department's decision not to grant a constructed export price offset in an antidumping duty investigation based on the claim that mandatory respondent Interpipe Ukraine didn't separately report the selling functions and the level at which it performed those functions from each home market channel of distribution runs contrary to the law, Interpipe argued in an Oct. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Interpipe also pushed back against Commerce's decision to deduct Section 232 duties from its U.S. price when calculating its dumping margin (Interpipe Ukraine LLC, et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00530).

Air fryers are not ovens, and should not be classified as such, air fryer importer Tristar Products argued in its Oct. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Kicking off its classification battle at CIT, Tristar argued that the air fryers don't belong under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for ovens and should be spared the 25% Section 301 China tariffs levied on ovens (Tristar Products, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00563).

The Commerce Department's decision to use the Turkish lira value of home market sales rather than the U.S. dollar in an antidumping duty review deviated from the agency's standard practice and distorted an exporter's AD duty rate, the exporter, Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi, said in an Oct. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, CIT #21-00527).