Antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret filed a second notice of supplemental authorities in its AD case at the Court of International Trade to point to a separate AD review involving a duty drawback adjustment and Commerce's requirement that only closed inward processing certificates be included in the numerator of Commerce's per unit calculation (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00616).
Counsel for importer Larson-Juhl US will proceed with the company's customs case alongside two cases from the relevant exporter, China Cornici Co., which is also represented by the same counsel. Submitting a joint status report to the Court of International Trade, Clark Hill attorneys said that they made the decision to allow the three cases to "proceed independently" instead of staying one of them following a meeting with the court in which Judge Stephen Vaden "asked the parties to reconsider the request to continue the stay and to discuss the order in which the three cases should proceed" (Larson-Juhl US v. United States, CIT # 23-00032).
The Commerce Department failed to adjust the export price for Chinese exporter Trina Solar and continued to use the "unreliable" price of Romanian glass over Trina's objections, the exporter argued in a Nov. 6 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Trina Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00213).
The Commerce Department continued to find that India was the appropriate primary surrogate country in its 16th administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, it said in remand results filed Nov. 6 at the Court of International Trade (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 21-00380)
CBP abused its discretion by ignoring explicit antidumping and countervailing duty scope language when it found that importer and AD/CVD petitioner Pitts Enterprises evaded the AD/CVD orders on chassis and subassemblies thereof from China, Pitts argued in a Nov. 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The importer admitted to integrating Chinese axle and landing gear leg components into finished chassis shipments, which were finished in Vietnam, but it said individual Chinese components were "explicitly removed from the scope" (Pitts Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 23-00234).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 30 - Nov. 5:
Importer Ditches Suit on Section 232 'Derivative' Duties After High Court Rejection in Separate Case
Importer Tempo Global Resources filed a stipulation of dismissal on Nov. 6 in its case on President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products, after the Supreme Court declined to hear another case challenging the same presidential action. The Court of International Trade stayed Tempo Global's case in August pending the high court's resolution of the separate Section 232 case, PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S. (see 2308080024). The Supreme Court rejected PrimeSource's request for review at the end of October, despite the company's claims that the case could allow the court to decide how separation-of-powers principles apply to statutory interpretations delegating vast legislative power to the executive branch (see 2310300020) (Tempo Global Resources v. United States, CIT # 20-00066).
Products imported by Cozy Comfort are "pullovers" or "sweatshirts" not "blankets" or "other garments," DOJ said in a Nov. 3 motion for judgment in a tariff classification case at the Court of International Trade (Cozy Comfort Company v. U.S., CIT # 22-00173).
The "true nature" of a case brought by Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) is to challenge the International Trade Commission's finding on non-negligiblity in the underlying antidumping duty investigation on hot-rolled steel from Turkey, despite Erdemir's insistance that the challenge is to the ITC's decision not to hold a reconsideration proceeding, a group of defendant-intervenors led by Cleveland-Cliffs said in their Nov. 3 reply at the Court of International Trade (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00349).