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).

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).

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 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).

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).

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).

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:

In a science-heavy motion for judgment filed Oct. 24, an importer of enriched isotope compounds said that the Commerce Department had, in a scope ruling, misunderstood the essential chemistry behind its products (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. U.S., CIT # 23-00080).

A petitioner and an exporter responded Oct. 17 to the Commerce Department’s results on remand of a review of common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey (see 2409060031), which saw the department mostly maintain its earlier positions (see 2405080048) (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00616).