On April 2, 2024, U.S. Epoxy Resin Producers Ad Hoc Coalition (hereinafter the “Coalition,” or “Petitioner”), filed a petition for the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties on U.S. imports of certain epoxy resins from China, India, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand.
SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION
The following language describes the imported merchandise from China
On October 4, 2023, U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition (“the Coalition”) and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (“United Steelworkers” or “USW”) ( collectively, “Petitioners”) filed a petition for the imposition of antidumping duties on Aluminum Extrusions from Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Italy
On April 27, 2023, American Brass Rod Fair Trade Coalition (“Coalition”), Mueller Brass Co. (“Mueller”) and Wieland Chase LLC (“Wieland”) (collectively, “Petitioners”), filed a petition for the imposition of antidumping duties on imports of brass rod from Brazil, India, Israel, Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea, as well as the imposition of countervailing duties on
On January 18, 2023, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, collectively known as (“Petitioners”), filed a petition for the imposition of antidumping duties on imports of Certain Tin Mill Products from Canada, China, Germany, Netherlands, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey and the United
On June 30, 2021, Zeon Chemicals L.P. and Zeon GP, LLC (“Petitioners”), filed a petition for the imposition of antidumping duties on imports of non-latex, non-hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber from France, Mexico, and South Korea.
SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION
The product covered by this investigation is commonly referred to as acrylonitrile butadiene rubber or nitrile rubber
On March 3, 2020, Petitioner Celanese Corporation filed a petition for the imposition of antidumping duties on imports of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene from South Korea.
SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION
The following language describes the scope of the imported merchandise that Petitioner intends to cover by this Petition:
The merchandise covered by the proposed scope
On June 3, 2019, in the ongoing case of determining whether or not Plaintiff Midwest Fastener’s zinc and nylon anchor products are considered to be nails, the CIT sustained the Department of Commerce’s final results of the redetermination pursuant to the Court Remand. The CIT concluded that Plaintiff’s zinc and nylon anchors do not function like nails and are considered a separate type of product from nails by the relevant industry. Commerce’s remand results were sustained and Plaintiff Midwest Fastener’s products were excluded from the scope.
On June 6, the CIT denied Plaintiffs Confederacion de Asociaciones Agricolas del Estado de Sinaloa, Consejo Agricola de Baja California, Asociacion Mexicana de Horticultura Protegida, Asociacion de Productores de Hortalizas del Yaqui y Mayo, and Sistem Producto Tomate (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction (“PI”) in the antidumping duty investigation of tomatoes from Mexico. The Court determined that the Plaintiffs had not met their burden to establish the likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. They also had failed to establish if the hardships tip in favor of denying the Plaintiff’s motion. The Court also found the public interest to be neutral. For those reasons the CIT denied the plaintiff’s motions.
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.