The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. on Nov. 27 filed a partial motion to remand regarding the Commerce Department's duty drawback adjustment in exporter Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret's case concerning the antidumping duty investigation on aluminum foil from Turkey. The government said it wants another chance to consider or further explain the "ratio used for the duty drawback adjustment" in the case after considering Assan's arguments. Assan consented to the request, while the petitioners, led by the Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group, said it takes no position on the motion without having looked at a copy of the motion (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00616).
The Commerce Department properly hit exporter Kumar Industries with a 13.61% adverse facts available dumping rate due to the respondent's "inadequate explanations" regarding one of its partners' ownership interest in two unnamed companies, companies A and B, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 22 opinion. Judge Timothy Stanceu sustained the rate as part of the first antidumping duty review on glycine from India, finding that Kumar "raised more questions than it answered" in its submissions, preventing Commerce from conducting a proper affiliate analysis.
The current scope of ongoing antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on aluminum extrusions from 15 countries would impose heavy costs on U.S. manufacturers and consumers, and as written would make it nearly impossible for CBP to administer and importers to comply, said a bevy of large multinational corporations and trade associations in comments filed recently filed with the Commerce Department.
The current scope of ongoing antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on aluminum extrusions from 15 countries would impose heavy costs on U.S. manufacturers and consumers, and as written would make it nearly impossible for CBP to administer and importers to comply, said a bevy of large multinational corporations and trade associations in comments filed recently filed with the Commerce Department.
Importer Amsted Rail Co. and its Mexican maquiladora affiliate ASF-K Mexico returned a conflict of interest suit against their former counsel, Buchanan Ingersoll partner Daniel Pickard to the Court of International Trade. Filing another complaint at the trade court after previous claims against the Buchanan partner fell short for jurisdictional reasons, ARC said Pickard "betrayed" the company by using its information against it in an injury petition on freight rail couplers from Mexico and China (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00242).
Aluminum trade groups are in disagreement on a trade remedy case on aluminum extrusions, with the Aluminum Association and its Mexican and Canadian counterparts telling U.S., Canadian and Mexican government officials that "the filing of a 15-country trade case, which includes Mexico, by a subsection of U.S. aluminum extrusion producers threatens to overshadow the longstanding coordination and partnership between the aluminum industries in the three countries."
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. added two attorneys to its litigation team in the massive Section 301 case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Filing an amended notice of appearance on Nov. 20, the government tacked on Melissa Patterson and Joshua Koppel -- two attorneys in DOJ's Civil Appellate Division -- to the appellee team for the U.S. (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
A spotlight on Uyghur forced labor in auto parts manufacturing that began a year ago (see 2212060054) has not yet resulted in much action from CBP (see 2309210025), but forced labor researchers say that may not continue to be the case.