Two Ecuadorian exporters challenged the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation on frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador, arguing, among other things, that the agency erred in finding that certain tax benefits were de facto specific and in applying adverse facts available for specific subsidy programs. Respondent Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila challenges its final 3.57% CVD rate, while respondent Sociedad Nacional De Galapagos (SONGA) challenges its 4.41% CVD rate (Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila v. United States, CIT # 25-00025).
The inaugural use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, which saw President Donald Trump set a 10% duty on all goods from China (see 2502030044), has sparked plenty of speculation as to how these tariffs could be challenged in court. One such argument is a statutory claim rooted in the text of IEEPA.
The Commerce Department continued to find on remand at the Court of International Trade that respondent Louis Dreyfus Co. Sucos S.A. and an unnamed supplier, dubbed "Supplier A," are not affiliated, nor are they partners. The agency said it's important to "distinguish 'exclusivity' from 'reliance'" in conducting affiliation analyses, noting that an exclusive relationship with a supplier doesn't mean a party isn't "perfectly capable of acting independently if the exclusive relationship is no longer in its interests" (Ventura Coastal v. United States, CIT # 23-00009).
The Commerce Department's finding that the Vietnamese traded-goods sector was the "predominant user" of the alleged undervaluation of the Vietnamese dong is not in line with the "statutory requirements," exporter Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co. argued in a Feb. 14 brief at the Court of International Trade (Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00397).
The Commerce Department properly excluded in-transit mattresses from the calculation of constructed export price (CEP) for respondent PT. Zinus Global Indonesia in the antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Indonesia, the Court of International Trade held on Feb. 18. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves also sustained Commerce's exclusion of the selling expenses of Zinus Indonesia's parent company Zinus Korea from the normal value calculation.
The Philippines opened a safeguard investigation on corrugating medium, a component of some cardboard types, on Feb. 13, the World Trade Organization announced. The Philippines said that interested parties should submit comments on the investigation to the Bureau of Import Services within five days of the publication of its notice, i.e., Feb. 18.
DOJ charged an Ohio-based subsidiary of a Russian aircraft parts supplier and three of its current and former employees with illegally exporting aircraft parts from the U.S. to Russia and Russian airline companies, DOJ announced.
The Government of India and exporter Balkrishna Industries replied to petitioner Titan Tire Corp.'s arguments against the Commerce Department's finding that Balkrishna 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. The Indian government said neither Commerce nor the petitioner had reason to doubt the fact that Balkrishna hadn't benefited from the program, while Balkrishna argued that the Indian government properly verified the information at issue (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00233).
The Supreme Court's holding in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated the concept of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes, "does not affect" the Court of International Trade's review of the differential pricing analysis, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 14 brief (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT # 23-00187).
Dicycles with electric motors and gyroscopic balancing technology, marketed and known as "hoverboards," are "chidren's cycles" and not "bicycles," importer GoLabs, doing business as GOTRAX, argued in a Feb. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade. As a result, the importer argued that the hoverboards fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9503.00.0090 and not subheading 8711.60.0050 as classified by CBP (GoLabs Inc. v. United States, CIT # 25-00003).