The Commerce Department violated the law when it found antidumping duty respondent Papierfabrik August Kohler's Blue4est developer-free paper to be within the scope of the AD duty order on thermal paper from Germany, the respondent told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 21 complaint. Commerce, in its preliminary determination, found the Blue4est paper to be outside of the scope of the order but changed its decision in the final results. This decision wasn't based on a change in evidence but rather a "conclusory decision to ignore the limited scope of the term 'thermal paper' as defined in the petition," the respondent said (Koehler Paper SE v. U.S., CIT #21-00633).
The Court of International Trade denied defendant-intervenors California Steel Industries' and Welspun Tubular's bid to stay an antidumping duty case concerning a particular market situation adjustment to a respondent's cost of production for the sales-below-cost test, in a Jan. 21 order. Since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit already ruled against the practice, Judge Claire Kelly said she couldn't be sure a stay would do anything more than just delay the proceedings of the case.
The Commerce Department came back with remand results in a case on its antidumping duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany, relying on total cost of production for prime and non-prime merchandise in respondent AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's books as facts otherwise available and revising the major input rule adjustment for Dillinger's coke inputs to reflect a contemporaneous comparison of coke consumption values and freight costs (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT Consol. #17-00158). Commerce also revised its adjustments to Dillinger's COP for inputs and services rendered to affiliates and gave a further explanation for its use of partial adverse facts available to respondent Salzgitter. The result was a 4.98% dumping rate for Dillinger, a 22.90% rate for Salzgitter and a 20.99% all-others rate, if the remand results are sustained.
The Commerce Department should not have considered "(k)(1)" materials over the plain meaning of the scope of an antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China in finding that certain flanges fall outside of the ADD order, defendant-intervenor ASC Engineered Solutions said in Jan. 20 comments at the Court of International Trade. Since Commerce found that Crane Resistoflex's flanges "clearly fall within the plain language of the scope," that should have been the end of the case. Instead, Commerce considered the (k)(1) materials and illegally excluded Crane's flanges, the brief said (MCC Holdings dba Crane Resistoflex v. U.S., CIT #18-00248).
The COVID-19 pandemic did not give the Commerce Department cover to ignore its statutory obligation to conduct on-site verification in antidumping duty proceedings, the plaintiffs in an ADD case told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 19 brief. Responding to the Department of Justice's defense of its decision to send an additional questionnaire instead of conducting on-site verification, the plaintiffs, led by Ellwood City Forge Company, said that DOJ's position is not entitled to Chevron deference and that the pandemic did not justify violating the statute (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00077).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The United States will not participate in the appeal over whether the law permits expedited countervailing duty reviews, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 19 letter. In the case, originally brought by the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, the Court of International Trade said that there was no legal authority for such reviews (see 2108190002). The decision was then appealed by the Canadian government, among other parties, which argued that the trade court improperly applied Chevron deference to the Commerce Department when it found that two different sections of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act didn't give Commerce the legal authority to carry out expedited reviews (see 2112280025) (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #19-00122).
Just because Section 232 tariffs are placed in Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, this doesn't make them remedial tariffs, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 14 brief. The tariffs also aren't temporary, don't count as a double remedy and can be deducted from an antidumping duty respondent's export price, the brief said (Borusan Mannesman Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2097).
The Court of International Trade improperly applied the "dual burden of proof" when it denied Meyer Corp. "first sale" valuation on its imports of cookware, Meyer told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 10 reply brief. The dual burden of proof practice was previously eliminated, so CIT improperly applied this standard when it denied Meyer first sale but sustained CBP's valuation of the imports based on their second sale rate, Meyer said (Meyer Corporation v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1932). "Despite its prodigious length (120 pages), the CIT's opinion consists mainly of a recitation of the parties' proposed post-trial findings and contains very little by way of legal analysis," the company said.
An importer needs to file a protest to claim jurisdiction at the Court of International Trade over protestable CBP decisions, and that includes CBP's assessment of Section 301 tariffs on goods subsequently granted a tariff exclusion, the Department of Justice said in a Jan. 18 brief. DOJ urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to uphold CIT's decision dismissing a lawsuit from ARP Materials and Harrison Steel seeking refunds of the duties, arguing CIT's "residual" jurisdiction under Section 1581(i) does not apply, since the plaintiff-appellants had adequate notice of CBP's actions and actually received Section 301 refunds for some of their entries (see 2109280061) (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).