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).

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).

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).

A domestic trade group for catfish farmers brought a motion for judgment Oct. 15 before the Court of International Trade, arguing that the Commerce Department should have at least applied partial adverse facts available to a mandatory respondent in its 2020-21 review of frozen fish fillets from Vietnam (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 24-00082).

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).

The U.S. will pay over $3 million in duty refunds with interest to importer Kiswire related to duty payments the company paid on its wire rod entries from South Korea. Filing a stipulated judgment with the Court of International Trade on Oct. 16, Kiswire and the government agreed to settle Kiswire's challenge against the antidumping duties assessed on its imports (Kiswire v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00181).

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

In oral arguments Oct. 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit indicated that the plaintiff challenging an Enforce and Protect Act evasion finding whose entries have all already been liquidated was likely not going to succeed in reversing the dismissal of its case by the Court of International Trade (see 2208180045) (All One God Faith v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).

The Commerce Department improperly found that its off-grid solar charging modules didn't qualify for two exclusions to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on solar cells from China, U.S. importer GameChange Solar Corp. argued Oct. 15. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade, GameChange said the agency illegally "disregarded, discounted, and mischaracterized contradictory information on the record including photographs submitted" by the importer (GameChange Solar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00174).