Dish Network offered additional details to the FCC on its comments supporting an NPRM asking about revised spectrum aggregation limits (see 2311090051). The screen should “take into account spectrum contiguity, and should structure clear and effective presumptions and divestiture remedies to avoid harm to competition and consumers for transactions that would exceed one of the screens,” said a filing posted Wednesday in docket 23-319. The screen should be calculated county by county. “The county-based calculations should be rolled up not only to the Cellular Market Area (CMA) as the Commission does today, but also to all of the other basic building blocks of … licensing areas -- meaning a Partial Economic Area (PEA) basis and Basic Trading Area (BTA) basis, as applicable,” Dish said: “Divestitures should be required for the largest licensing area of these three that is implicated in a case of screen exceedance and should include additional counties not covered by that licensing area as necessary to cure the exceedance.” Dish urged providers seeking to bid for additional spectrum that would exceed the screen should "disclose such current or potential exceedances in their short-form application, and provide evidence to rebut the presumption against any acquisition that would cause the exceedance in their long-form application.”
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. said it hasn't made a decision on whether to proceed with an appeal of a case brought by exporter Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group on the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, it said in a third extension request for the filing of its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government said its notice of appeal was "protective," and it needs more time to "complete and finalize" the process for determining whether to "authorize" the appeal (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).
DOJ and steel importer NLMK Pennsylvania are awaiting word from the U.S. "settlement authority" regarding NLMK's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion case after the parties agreed to a settlement in principle, they said Jan. 2. The Court of International Trade gave the government and NLMK another stay in the case, granting them 30 additional days to file another status report (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT # 21-00507).
Companies, labor unions and domestic producer coalitions that support antidumping and countervailing duties on Vietnamese exports all said Vietnam has not changed its practices enough to be considered a market economy in AD/CVD cases in the 21 years since the last evaluation of its status found it wasn't.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 25-31:
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Indian exporter Kumar Industries took to the Court of International Trade to contest the adverse facts available rate it received for purportedly failing to cooperate to the best of its ability in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from India. Filing a complaint on Jan. 1, Kumar said Commerce erred in using AFA due to the noncooperation of two entities which the agency said were related to Kumar (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT # 23-00263).
Big box retailer Target Corp. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for more time to file its reply brief in its suit against the Court of International Trade's decision to order reliquidation of Target's entries that erroneously received a favorable antidumping duty rate. While the brief is currently due on Jan. 5, 2024, Target asked if it could submit its arguments on Jan. 19 "due largely to the circumstances of the holidays" (Target Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).
A Turkish aluminum foil exporter Dec. 22 sought expedited consideration of a request for a voluntary remand by the Commerce Department and challenged concerns raised by domestic petitioners in a case involving a duty drawback adjustment on its products (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00616).