The U.S. supported its cross-motion for judgment (see 2402160055) against an exporter’s reply (see 2404100071) May 29 in a case regarding the classification of automobile side bars. It again pointed out that the bars are principally used as steps, not side protective attachments, and argued that the plaintiffs weren’t engaging with the merits of the case (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade on May 31 said that a duty drawback claim becomes deemed liquidated after one year if the underlying import entries are also liquidated and final, with finality defined as the end of the 180-day window in which to file a protest with CBP.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on May 31 said that a duty drawback claim becomes deemed liquidated after one year if the underlying import entries are also liquidated and final, with finality defined as the end of the 180-day window in which to file a protest with CBP.
The Canadian government and a group of eight Canadian lumber exporters sought to file an amici curiae brief in a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping. Filing unopposed for leave to file the briefs on May 28, the parties said they can provide "unique and robust explanations of the Cohen's d denominator, a full understanding of which will" aid the court to settle the issues in the case (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1556).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade for leave to exceed its 7,000 word limit by 2,300 words in a reply brief amid its case against a Chinese exporter of automobile accessories (see 2404100071) (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).
An Indian quartz countertop exporter had the 323.12% adverse facts available antidumping duty assigned to it remanded by the Court of International Trade on May 28.
The Court of International Trade on May 28 said the Commerce Department erred in revoking the antidumping duty orders on stilbenic optical brightening agents from Taiwan and China after it didn't receive a timely notice of intent to participate in the orders' sunset reviews from a domestic producer. Judge M. Miller Baker told Commerce to conduct the full sunset reviews since U.S. manufacturer Archroma U.S. filed substantive responses to the agency's notice of initiation of the sunset reviews.