Responding to petitioners’ pushback (see 2409270050) against new results on remand that saw the Commerce Department lower a Brazilian honey exporter’s antidumping duty rate from 83.72% to 10.52%, the U.S. said it supports the results (Apiario Diamante Comercial Exportadora v. United States, CIT # 22-00185).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Defendant-intervenors opposed Oct. 15 an exporter’s motion for judgment, supporting an affirmative Commerce Department circumvention determination regarding circular welded steel pipe imports from Vietnam. The department claimed the pipe actually originated from South Korea, India and China (SeAH Steel Vina Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. #s 23-00256, -00257, -00258).

Exporter Oman Fasteners on Oct. 18 urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reschedule oral argument in its antidumping duty appeal that is currently set for Nov. 7. Counsel for the exporter said an "unforeseeable scheduling conflict arose that will make it exceedingly difficult" for the company to argue the case on that date (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential Oct. 18 order sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Vietnam. Judge Timothy Reif gave the parties until Oct. 25 to review the confidential information in the decision for potential bracketing. The suit was brought by exporter Kumho Tire (Vietnam), which received a 7.89% CVD rate and claimed that Commerce can't countervail Vietnam's currency valuation practices (see 2206030027) (Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co. v. United States, CIt # 21-00397).

AD/CVD petitioner Dexstar Wheel Division of Americana Development on Oct. 15 opposed importer Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel's motion to amend a preliminary injunction in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case on steel trailer wheels to allow CBP to liquidate some of its entries. Dexstar said Lionshead failed to show that its entries are the specific type of wheels found by the Commerce Department to be excluded from the AD/CVD orders on the steel trailer wheels from China (Dexter Distribution Group LLC v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 24-00019).

Exporter Shelter Forest International Acquisition filed a reply brief at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 15, arguing that the U.S. and petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood failed to justify the Commerce Department's rejection of the company's new factual information in a circumvention proceeding on Vietnamese hardwood plywood. Shelter Forest said both the government and the petitioner didn't address "important past judicial precedent" (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00144)

A German exporter of forged steel fluid end blocks brought a complaint Oct. 16 to the Court of International Trade arguing that the Commerce Department, in a review of the antidumping duty order on its products, illegally expanded the scope of the AD order to include forged steel products that weren’t fluid end blocks (BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. U.S., CIT # 24-00176).

U.S. importer Houston Shutters on Oct. 16 told the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department improperly declined to open a changed circumstances review to exclude wood shutter components from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wood moldings and millwork products from China. Filing a complaint at the trade court, Houston Shutters said Commerce bucked its statutory mandate that the agency "shall conduct a review" (Houston Shutters v. U.S., CIT # 24-00193)

Importer Phoenix Metal Co. on Oct. 16 voluntarily dismissed its appeal of an Enforce and Protect Act proceeding at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Court of International Trade sustained CBP's finding that the company evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on cast iron soil pipe from China by transshipping the pipe through Cambodia (see 2406100027). The trade court rejected Phoenix's due process claims, which faulted CBP for failing to notify the company that it was subject to an interim EAPA investigation, finding that Phoenix failed to allege that it suffered specific-enough harm by being subject to the interim measures without adequate notice. Counsel for Phoenix declined to comment on the decision to drop the appeal (Phoenix Metal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00048).