In response to a motion for judgment filed by an importer of Mexican rail couplers, the U.S. and a petitioner each said Oct. 25 that the Commerce Department doesn't have to consider conflict of interest claims in antidumping duty investigations. The importer brought a conflict of interest suit against the petitioner in an AD investigation, saying that the petitioner relied on evidence from an attorney it itself had once hired (see 2407160060) (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00242).

The United States sought to recover more than $22 million from an importer who it said fraudulently dodged antidumping duties on wooden bedroom furniture from China (U.S. v. Lawrence Bivona, CIT # 24-00196).

The Commerce Department on Oct. 28 continued to reject separate rate status for exporters Mayrun Tyre (Hong Kong), Shandong Hengyu Science & Technology Co., Winrun Tyre Co., Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co. and Shandong Linglong Tyre Co. in the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 28 denied importer Retractable Technologies' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the collection of certain Section 301 tariffs, though the court granted the company's motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining liquidation of its entries during the course of litigation. Judge Claire Kelly issued the confidential decision, giving the parties until Nov. 1 to review any confidential information in the opinion (Retractable Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 24-00185).

Two more complaints from Chinese high protein content pea protein exporters (see 2410230049) and an importer hit the Court of International Trade on Oct. 25, this time challenging the International Trade Commission’s final affirmative critical circumstances determination regarding pea protein from China (NURA USA v. U.S., CIT # 24-00182; Jianyuan International v. U.S., CIT # 24-00184).

Importer Portmeirion Group USA dropped its customs case at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 28, filing a notice of dismissal. The company brought the suit in 2021 to reclassify its ceramic tableware and kitchenware imports under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6911.10.3850, dutiable at 6%, or subheading 6912.00.3950, dutiable at 4.5%. Counsel for the importer declined to comment (Portmeirion Group USA v. United States, CIT # 21-00179).

The Commerce Department unlawfully declined to assign exporter Yantai Zhongzhen Trading Co. a separate antidumping rate in the AD investigation on pea protein from China, the company argued in a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 25. Zhongzhen targeted Commerce's decision to root its finding in the fact that one if its corporate officials is a member of a local People's Congress and another is a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference of Zhaoyuan City (CPPCC) (Yantai Oriental Protein Tech Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00181).

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

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 28 dismissed exporter Yantai T.Full Biotech Co.'s antidumping case for failure to prosecute. The exporter didn't file a complaint within the period prescribed by the statute. The company filed its suit in September to contest the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on pea protein from China (Yantai T.Full Biotech Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00183).

An exporter that was hit with a China-wide antidumping rate of 144.5% after it filed a separate rate certification a week late -- mistakenly believing that a deadline extension granted to “numerous parties” also applied to it -- said in an Oct. 25 motion for judgment that the Commerce Department was too “draconian” in enforcing its deadlines (Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00085).