An exporter says a government brief failed to address its argument that the Commerce Department had found in a review that the exporter experienced large enough swings in production costs to call for a quarterly analysis, then went on to determine it had used differential pricing with the Cohen's d test anyway (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00113).
The Commerce Department can't use prior administrative reviews as the basis for decisions when doing so goes against factual evidence, an appellee argued March 4 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).
A petitioner in antidumping and countervailing duty cases on chassis from China that later began to import vehicle chassis from Vietnam said the Commerce Department was misapplying the scope of its orders on Chinese chassis from China that it itself had requested (Pitts Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00030).
Exporters Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. and Heze Huayi Chemical Co. filed a complaint on March 6 at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's consideration of Romania as a surrogate country in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from China (Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00026).
International Rights Advocates said the Court of International Trade's recent decision in Ninestar Corp. v. U.S. "highlights the unreasonableness of CBP's delay in issuing a [withhold release order] against imports of cocoa products made with forced child labor in Cote d'Ivoire" (International Rights Advocates v. U.S., CIT # 23-00165).
Another ball bearings exporter threw its complaint into the ring March 5 to contest a recent antidumping duty administrative review. It alleged that the Commerce Department unnecessarily applied partial adverse facts available and needlessly conducted a pricing differential analysis for the mandatory respondent (Zhejiang Jingli Bearing Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00038).
U.S. importer CME Acquisitions filed a complaint on March 6 at the Court of International Trade to contest the adverse facts available rate for the non-selected companies in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Taiwan (CME Acquisitions v. United States, CIT # 24-00032).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. filed another brief supporting its motion to dismiss a case involving the liquidation of entries that were the subject of a prior disclosure, which it argues the Court of International Trade has no jurisdiction to hear (Larson-Juhl US v. U.S., CIT # 23-00032).
Three importers said in combined remand comments that CBP was attempting to illegally shift the burden of proof onto them to prove they weren't guilty of evasion under the Enforce and Protect Act (Newtrend USA Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00347).