The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Administration’s scope determination that plaintiff Acme Furniture Industry, Inc.’s imported product (a daybed with trundle) falls within the scope of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China (A-570-890).

The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Administration’s calculation of antidumping rates for separate rate respondents in its redetermination of the AD final determination of narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from China (A-570-952). The ITA’s redetermination was pursuant to a CIT partial remand of the final determination at issue. Chinese plaintiff Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co., Ltd. challenged the ITA’s use of a simple average of the 247.65% Adverse Facts Available rate for one mandatory respondent and the de minimis rate for the other to obtain a 123.83% rate for the separate rate respondents, including Bestpak. While the CIT issued its original partial remand in the belief that there might be additional choices from which the ITA could calculate the separate rate, the CIT has now sustained the ITA’s calculation after considering the ITA’s explanation because in this case, according to CIT, those additional choices do not exist.

The Court of International Trade remanded to the International Trade Administration the final results of the 2004 changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on extruded rubber thread from Malaysia (A-557-805), which determined to revoke the AD order due to the bankruptcy of the sole U.S. manufacturer of the domestic like product. While the ITA revoked the order effective October 1, 2003, plaintiff Heveafil SDN. BHD. argues for an effective date of October 1, 1995.

The Court of International Trade dismissed claims by domestic plaintiffs Tampa Bay Fisheries, Inc. and Singleton Fisheries, Inc. arising from the U.S. International Trade Commission and U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s denial of monetary benefits under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA, or the “Byrd Amendment”). Tampa Bay and Singleton were not included on the ITC’s list of Affected Domestic Producers (ADPs) because of a failure to check the relevant boxes on an ITC questionnaire, and were therefore ineligible to receive Byrd Amendment distributions of antidumping duties collected under AD duty orders on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil, Thailand, India, China, Vietnam and Ecuador.

The Court of International Trade affirmed the International Trade Administration’s remand redetermination in the 2008-09 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from China (A-552-801). The remand redetermination, which domestic plaintiffs Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Association (AHSTA) continued to dispute, was pursuant to a 2011 CIT order to further explain or reconsider its decision to rely exclusively on U.S. Customs and Border Protection Form 7501 data for entries designated as “Type 03”¹ when selecting mandatory respondents in the review.

The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Administration’s scope determination, challenged by Chinese company Global Commodity Group LLC (GCG), that GCG’s imported product falls within the scope of certain antidumping and countervailing duty orders on citric acid and certain citrate salts from China (A-570-937 and C-570-938, respectively).

The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Administration’s final antidumping duty determination in certain coated paper suitable for high-quality print graphics using sheet-fed presses from Indonesia (A-570-958) with respect to the Indonesian company Pindo Deli’s arguments that (i) the ITA improperly expanded the scope of the investigation to include multi-ply paper, and (ii) the ITA’s final determination is contrary to law because it rests on inadequate industry support.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to allow the filing of a petition for certiorari under seal, in the case of John Mezzalingua Associates v. International Trade Commission, in its order list released April 2. In the case, No. 10-1536 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2011), the U.S. Appeals Court, Federal Circuit, affirmed the ITC's decision that Mezzalingua failed to satisfy the domestic industry requirement of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1337. The firm, doing business as PPC, manufactures cable connectors used to connect coaxial cables to electronic devices. It filed suit in the ITC, alleging violations of section 337 and asserting infringement of four PPC patents by Arris International. An ALJ ruled that PPC had satisfied the domestic industry requirement but the ITC reversed the ALJ ruling. The Supreme Court dismissed the bid for the right to file under seal, but said Mezzalingua could file a renewed motion providing more information supporting the request.

The Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, refused to rehear en banc a case involving tariffs paid on plasma flat panel televisions assembled in Mexico between June 1, 2003, and December 27, 2005. The petition for rehearing was filed by plaintiff Hitachi Home Electronics in the case of Hitachi Home Electronics (America) vs. the U.S. The court said a poll of the judges showed no support for a rehearing.

The Court of International Trade denied a motion by two Korean producer/exporters to amend a preliminary injunction against liquidation of entries of merchandise subject to the revoked antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof from Korea in order to permit liquidation of subject merchandise entered on or after the effective date of revocation of the order. In the same opinion, the CIT also allowed the domestic plaintiffs (Diamond Sawblades Manufacturing Coalition) to amend their complaint in the case, as the ITA’s final section 129 determination for diamond sawblades from Korea altered the effect of the results of the AD final determination at issue in the litigation.