The Commerce Department legally used a quarterly ratios methodology to set the quantity of subject mattresses sold by respondent Zinus Indonesia in an antidumping duty investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled on March 20. Ruling on seven specific challenges raised by Zinus Indonesia and AD petitioner Brooklyn Bedding, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves also upheld Commerce's decision to use surrogate financial information from Indian mattress maker Emirates Sleep Systems, calculation and application of a profit cap and adjustment to Zinus U.S.'s reported sales deductions.
Importer Diamond Tools Technology did not make a "material and false statement" and so did not evade the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on diamond sawblades from China via Thailand, CBP said in remand results filed under protest with the Court of International Trade. CBP said it made its finding to bring the proceeding in line with the trade court's remand order, which said that DTT's "failure to declare" its pre-Dec. 1, 2017, imports as subject to the AD order was not a material and false statement under the Enforce and Protect Act (Diamond Tools Tech. v. Unied States, CIT # 20-00060).
The Court of International Trade on March 20 upheld the Commerce Department's withdrawal of a separate-rate questionnaire it had erroneously issued to exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer in an antidumping review, finding Commerce's rejection of the company's answers as untimely was proper because the agency had withdrawn the questionnaire before Jin Tiong submitted its response.
CIT Sustains Commerce's Rejection of Exporter's Additional Cost Reconciliation Info, Use of 'd' Test
The Commerce Department properly refused to factor a company’s alleged losses related to the company's failure to convert certain expenses from U.S. dollars to Canadian dollars into the cost of manufacturing wind towers from Canada, the Court of International Trade said March 20. Antidumping duty respondent Marmen didn’t qualify for the adjustments because its exchange gains and losses were already accounted for in the antidumping duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Canada, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said in an opinion.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Shamrock Building Materials will appeal a Court of International Trade decision upholding CBP's classification of the company's steel conduit tubing imports from Mexico as steel tubing and not insulated fittings, according to a notice of appeal. Shamrock will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The trade court ruled that the "uncontested facts" show the tubing is not insulated and therefore subject to 25% Section 232 steel tariffs (see 2303140035) (Shamrock Building Materials v. U.S., CIT # 20-00074).
The Commerce Department accepted ministerial errors originally rejected as untimely in an antidumping duty proceeding on remand at the Court of International Trade, raising the dumping rates for the two respondents should the remand results be sustained. Commerce corrected errors in respondent Prolamsa's currency conversion and respondent Maquilacero's quarterly cost methodology in the 2018-19 administrative review of the AD order on heavy walled rectangular welded steel pipes and tubes from Mexico, causing their AD rates to rise from zero percent to 2.11% for Prolamsa and to 3.48% for Maquilacero (Nucor Tubular Products v. United States, CIT # 21-00543).
The International Trade Commission legally applied retroactive antidumping and countervailing duties on imports of small vertical shaft engines from China, the Court of International Trade said. In a March 16 opinion, Judge M. Miller Baker said the "court will not second-guess" the ITC's decision, which found that the retroactive duties were justified because of a surge in imports of the engines just before the antidumping and countervailing duties took effect.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative complied with Administrative Procedure Act requirements when it set lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China, the Court of International Trade held in a much-anticipated opinion on March 17. After USTR provided more explanation of its tariff decisions on remand, judges Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves held that the explanations were not made impermissibly post hoc and cleared APA requirements.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: