Several Indian quartz surface product exporters and U.S. importers oppose a U.S. quartz countertop manufacturer's bid for an injunction to suspend liquidation of Indian quartz surface product imports more than eight months after the deadline. The U.S. manufacturer’s motion was prompted by the consolidated plaintiffs’ attempt to dissolve their own, similar injunction (Cambria Company v. U.S., CIT # 23-00007).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. is "in the process of recommending settlement" in a case from steel importer NLMK Pennsylvania regarding the Commerce Department's refusal to grant it exclusions for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties, the government and NLMK said in a joint status report at the Court of International Trade. The parties asked the court to allow them to file another joint status report in 30 days (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT # 21-00507).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 1 stayed for 60 days a case on the Commerce Department's refusal to grant Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions so the parties can conclude the voluntary remand process and "effectuate" Commerce's remand results. The agency changed course last year, granting the exclusions for importer Mirror Metals after finding that the relevant steel article could not be made at a sufficient level in the U.S. (see 2204190016) (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT # 21-00144).
Japanese exporter Nippon Steel Corp. failed to exhaust its claim that Section 232 duties weren't included in the prices it charged to its unrelated U.S. buyers in a trio of the exporter's cases against three antidumping reviews of hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan, AD petitioner Nucor Corp. argued. Filing a supplemental brief to the Court of International Trade on Dec. 1, Nucor said that Nippon Steel failed to raise the argument in any of the three reviews and failed to plead the claim "with sufficiency," thereby waiving the argument (Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT # 21-00533, 22-00183, 23-00112).
Thai trailer wheel exporters and importers sought relief Nov. 20 from a Commerce Department final scope ruling that their products, whose components were made from Chinese-sourced materials, were subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese trailer wheels (Asia Wheel v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00096).
The Commerce Department shouldn't have granted a de minimis antidumping duty rate to a respondent in the AD investigation on preserved mushrooms from the Netherlands, the domestic petitioner for the investigation argued in a motion for judgment filed at the Court of International Trade Nov. 21 (Giorgio Foods v. U.S., CIT # 23-00133).
DOJ in a Nov. 20 brief once again defended its right to use adverse facts available in calculating an Indian quartz surface product exporter's antidumping duty rate after that importer missed a filing deadline by several hours. It also stood by its all-others rate for other Indian quartz exporters against a domestic petitioner's challenge (Cambria Company v. U.S., CIT # 23-00007).
Importer Click Heat filed a notice of dismissal at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 29 in its customs suit regarding its heat packs. The importer filed the suit to challenge CBP's dismissal of its protest claiming the heat packs should receive first sale valuation. Counsel for Click Heat declined to comment (Click Heat v. United States, CIT # 21-00119).
The Commerce Department improperly came to the conclusion that Indian exporter Balkrishna Industries didn't use, or benefit from, India's Advanced Authorization Scheme in the 2021 countervailing duty review on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from India, petitioner Titan Tire Corp. argued in a Nov. 28 complaint. Titan Tire said that Commerce based its finding on a "post hoc, incomplete, and cursory examination" conducted by the Indian government related to the program (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00233).