The Commerce Department and exporter Teh Fong Min (TMF) International Co. said on July 26 that it will appeal a May Court of International Trade decision finding that the agency 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 order's sunset reviews from a domestic producer (see 2405290050). The trade court told the agency to conduct the full sunset reviews because U.S. manufacturer Archroma U.S. filed substantive responses to the agency's notice of initiation of the sunset reviews. According to its notice of appeal, Commerce will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Archroma U.S. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00354).
Jacob Kopnick
Jacob Kopnick, Associate Editor, is a reporter for Trade Law Daily and its sister publications Export Compliance Daily and International Trade Today. He joined the Warren Communications News team in early 2021 covering a wide range of topics including trade-related court cases and export issues in Europe and Asia. Jacob's background is in trade policy, having spent time with both CSIS and USTR researching international trade and its complexities. Jacob is a graduate of the University of Michigan with a B.A. in Public Policy.
The Court of International Trade on July 26 sent back the Commerce Department's consideration of alternative time periods in using the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping in the 2020-21 review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe from the United Arab Emirates.
The Congressional Research Service on July 26 released a report breaking down appellate decisions issued in recent years applying the U.S. Supreme Court's now-defunct Chevron standard of deference. The high court swapped this standard for a requirement of de novo review of federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes in Loper Bright v. Raimondo (see 2406280051).
The Court of International Trade in a July 17 decision made public July 25 sent back the Commerce Department's use of exporter Prochamp's German sales as the comparison market in an antidumping duty investigation. Judge M. Miller Baker said that since the agency didn't know what percentage of the company's German sales were actually for consumption in Germany, Commerce's use of the comparison market was unsupported.
The EU on July 26 requested dispute settlement consultations at the World Trade Organization on Taiwan's use of local content criteria for offshore wind energy projects, the European Commission announced.
Chinese cartridge exporter Ninestar Corp. told the Court of International Trade in a July 26 reply brief that it's not attempting to "exhaust its remedies" before the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force by requesting removal from the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Responding to the government's bid to dismiss the case, Ninestar said it's merely asking FLETF to "take a new agency action, based on a different legal standard and a different evidentiary record" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The World Trade Organization's Dispute Settlement Body agreed on July 26 to establish two dispute panels, at the request of South Africa, to review EU restrictions on South African citrus fruit. South Africa submitted its second request for two panels in spats on the EU restrictions, which were imposed to control the spread of the insect known as the "False Codling Moth" and fungus known as "citrus black spot."
The Court of International Trade denied Seko Customs Brokerage's bids for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against its temporary suspension from the Entry Type 86 Test and Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism programs. Judge Claire Kelly found Seko already received all the relief it sought when it was conditionally reinstated into the programs and told why it was originally suspended.
Litigants sparred at a July 23 oral argument at the Court of International Trade on whether the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel wheels from China cover wheels shipped from Thailand with either a rim or a disc made in China. The parties disagreed on whether a prior scope ruling from the Commerce Department spoke to whether these "mixed" goods -- wheels made with either a Chinese-origin rim or disc, but not both -- are covered by the AD/CVD scope (Asia Wheel v. United States, CIT # 23-00096).