On March 26, 2024, the Eastman Chemical Company (“Petitioner”), filed a petition for the imposition of antidumping on DOTP imports from Taiwan, Turkey, Malaysia, and Poland.
SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION
The following language describes the imported merchandise the Petitioner intends to be included in the scope of these investigations. The product covered by these Petitions
On July 28, 2023, Brooklyn Bedding LLC; Carpenter Co., Corsicana Mattress Company; Future Foam, Inc.; FXI, Inc.; Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.; Leggett & Platt, Incorporated; Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC; Southerland, Inc.; Tempur Sealy International; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International
On May 1, 2019, the CIT sustained Commerce’s remand redetermination results following a countervailing duty investigation for certain hot-rolled steel flat products from the Republic of Korea. The court reviewed two issues on remand, Commerce’s selection of the highest calculated AFA rate and Commerce’s corroboration. Concerning the first issued on the selection of the AFA rate, the CIT found that Plaintiff POSCO did not exhaust its administrative remedies. The second issue presented was whether or not the selected 1.05% AFA rate was corroborated based upon substantial evidence and whether Commerce’s selection of a non-de-minimis AFA rate was appropriate because it was a rate calculated for a cooperating Korean company in another countervailing duty proceeding for a similar program.
On May 2, 2019, in the case of garage door openers that were redesigned to avoid infringement on a registered patent, the CIT denied the ITC’s motion for a stay pending appeal based on the grounds that the ITC did not meet its burden for a stay. A stay of the preliminary injunction and all other proceedings in this matter was not warranted as: (1) the ITC has not demonstrated a “strong showing” of likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the ITC has not demonstrated that it will be irreparably injured absent a stay in this action, (3) the issuance of a stay would substantially injure another party, the Plaintiff, and (4) the public interest is neutral. For those reasons, the CIT denied the ITC’s motion for a stay.