LinkedInFacebookInstagramXYouTube
305-456-3830|info@diaztradelaw.com

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC)

Call 305-456-3830 or email info@diaztradelaw.com.

New AD/CVD Case Filed Against Choline Salts from China 

A new antidumping and countervailing duty action has been filed against Choline Salts from China. The allegation is that imports from China are being dumped and unfairly subsidized.  

Full list of importers here.
Full list of exporters here. 

Background on AD/CVD Investigations 

Antidumping duty (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigations are brought jointly by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC”) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). AD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports of particular goods from specific countries being sold at less than a fair value. Meanwhile, CVD investigations are initiated when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports unfairly subsidized by their governments. The domestic industry initiating the investigation is known as the petitioner, while the foreign industry participating in the investigation is known as the respondent. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by these investigations is choline salts, in all forms and purities.  

The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheadings: 2923.10.0000, 2106.90.9998, 2309.90.1005, 2309.90.1015, 2309.90.1020, 2309.90.1030, 2309.90.1032, 2309.90.1035, 2309.90.1045, 2309.90.1050, 2309.90.9500, and 3824.99.9397.  

Full scope here.

Next Steps 

The Commerce Department will determine whether to initiate the […]

By |2026-06-26T12:37:20-04:00June 26, 2026|China, Import, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC)|0 Comments
Read More

New AD/CVD Case Filed Against Stationary and Portable Air Compressors from China, Malaysia, and Vietnam 

A new antidumping and countervailing duty action has been filed against stationary and portable air compressors from China, Malaysia, and Vietnam. The allegation is that imports from China, Malaysia, and Vietnam are unfairly subsidized and are being dumped.  

Full list of importers here.  

Full list of exporters here.

Background on AD/CVD Investigations 

 Antidumping duty (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigations are brought jointly by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC”) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). AD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports of particular goods from specific countries being sold at less than a fair value. Meanwhile, CVD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports that are being unfairly subsidized by their governments. The domestic industry initiating the investigation is known as the petitioner, while the foreign industry participating in the investigation is known as the respondent.

Scope of the Investigation  

The merchandise covered by these investigations is stationary and portable air compressors, electric, gas, and battery-powered.  

The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheadings: 8414.80.1615, 8414.80.1625, 8414.80.1635, and 8414.80.1685.  

Full scope here.

Next Steps 

The Commerce Department will determine whether to initiate the investigations within […]

By |2026-05-06T09:41:00-04:00May 6, 2026|AD/CVD, China, Import, International Trade, Investigation, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), Vietnam|0 Comments
Read More

New AD Case Filed Against Polytetramethylene Ether Glycol From China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam   

A new antidumping action has been filed against Polytetramethylene Ether Glycol from China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam. The allegation is that imports from China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam are being dumped.  

Full list of exporters here. 

Import volume here.  

Background on AD Investigations 

Antidumping duty (“AD”) is brought jointly by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC”) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). AD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports of particular goods from specific countries being sold at less than a fair value. The domestic industry initiating the investigation is known as the petitioner, while the foreign industry participating in the investigation is known as the respondent. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by these investigations is all forms of polytetramethylene ether glycol (“PTMEG”).  

The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheadings: 3907.29.00 and 2932.11.00.   

Full scope here.

Next Steps 

The Commerce Department will determine whether to initiate the investigations within 20 days. The USITC will reach a preliminary determination of material injury or threat of material injury within 45 days. 

As with any proceeding, participation is very important to protect your rights. We urge anyone who imports Polytetramethylene Ether Glycol from China, South Korea, Taiwan, or Vietnam to […]

By |2026-04-09T16:24:14-04:00April 9, 2026|AD/CVD, Import, International Trade, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC)|0 Comments
Read More

Court Orders Refunds of IEEPA Tariffs – NOW Is the Time to File Litigation at the CIT

In a significant development for importers, on March 4, 2026, Judge Eaton of the Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a strong and detailed order requiring the refunds for entries of every plaintiff before the CIT who has challenged these IEEPA Tariffs.

The CIT Order

In the order, Judge Eaton clearly stated that the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), the CIT has national jurisdiction and the ability to issue a broad order, that he is the judge to whom all IEEPA refunds have been assigned, and that he views the facts and law as clear. It is not clear whether he is also ordering the refunds for everyone else not in court, which will unquestionably be further litigated. 

We note that in response to written questions from the court, U.S. Customs and Border Protection stated that they were continuing to liquidate entries with IEEPA duties if they were deposited at the time of entry, that they were not issuing refunds, and that they had not issued instructions to liquidate without IEEPA duties. They further stated that any refunds will require a review to determine if there was a violation of other customs laws or if other duties, taxes, and fees were still owed. In other words, CBP intends to conduct detailed reviews of all entries before issuing refunds. The responses provided by CBP to the Judge were reviewed by the Judge and likely resulted […]

By |2026-03-06T10:40:19-05:00March 6, 2026|Import, International Trade, tariffs, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC)|0 Comments
Read More

ICYMI: President Trump Lifts Syria Sanctions

On June 30, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order formally terminating the Syria sanctions program, which had been in place for two decades.  

The Executive Order (effective July 1, 2025) revoked the following six prior executive orders dating back to 2004:

  • Executive Order 13338 of May 11, 2004 (Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria),
  • Executive Order 13399 of April 25, 2006 (Blocking Property of Additional Persons in Connection With the National Emergency With Respect to Syria)
  • Executive Order 13460 of February 13, 2008 (Blocking Property of Additional Persons in Connection With the National Emergency With Respect to Syria)
  • Executive Order 13572 of April 29, 2011 (Blocking Property of Certain Persons with Respect to Human Rights Abuses in Syria)
  • Executive Order 13573 of May 18, 2011 (Blocking Property of Senior Officials of the Government of Syria)
  • Executive Order 13582 of August 17, 2011 (Blocking Property of the Government of Syria and Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Syria).

The revocation of Executive Order 13338 ended the national emergency that underpinned the subsequent executive orders.

The Executive Order also waived certain sanctions imposed by the Syria Accountability Act and the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act.

On […]

By |2025-07-03T09:29:53-04:00July 3, 2025|Countries, Enforcement, U.S. Department of State (DOS), U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)|0 Comments
Read More
This website uses cookies and third party services. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the Privacy Policy. OK
Skip to content
Go to Top