The Commerce Department violated the law when it used the total adverse facts available rate for two non-cooperative respondents as the all-others rate in an antidumping duty review, plaintiff-appellants led by Cheng CH International argued in a Dec. 23 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Appealing a Court of International Trade ruling upholding the rate, the appellant said the "punitive, total AFA rate" Commerce assigned the non-individually examined respondents was not based on their actual dumping margin (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2128).
The International Trade Commission violated the law by failing to either conduct a changed circumstances review or reconsider its original antidumping neglibility decision in a sunset review, Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) argued in a group of three related complaints at the Court of International Trade. After another exporter, Colakoglu Dis Ticaret, was revoked from the AD order following court proceedings, the ITC illegally denied any opportunity for Colakoglu's imports to be excluded from the antidumping duty injury proceeding, Erdemir said (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00349, #22-00350, #22-00351).
The Commerce Department must reconsider its use of adverse facts available rate for countervailing duty respondent Yama Ribbons and Bows' alleged receipt of benefits from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Dec. 23 opinion. Judge Timothy Stanceu said Commerce should take another look at the 10.54% rate, saying the goal of AFA is not to use a "punitive" rate but one that encourages parties to comply with agency requests to the best of their ability. However, the judge found the use of AFA over the EBCP itself was reasonable, making Stanceu the court's third judge to buck a long line of prior CIT rulings against the use of AFA for the EBCP.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should let the U.S. add a key "Deficiencies Memorandum" to the record of an antidumping duty case since the document was "intertwined" with the AD proceeding's final results, petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition argued in a Dec. 21 reply brief. Arguing the memorandum is part of the record "as a matter of law" since it was "considered by agency decision-makers," the petitioner opposed the initiative from the Grupo Simec-led plaintiffs to oppose the addition of the memo to the record (Grupo Acerero v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00202).
Plaintiffs Amsted Rail Co., ASF-K de Mexico, Strato and TTX will appeal a Court of International Trade decision dismissing their attorney misconduct suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, according to a Dec. 22 notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Questions arose over whether the plaintiffs would actually appeal the case after the trade court rejected a proposed injunction that would bar ARC's former counsel and his firm from accessing confidential information in the underlying International Trade Commission proceeding (see 2212200033) (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00307).
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 22 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017-2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hardwood plywood from China. In all, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves looked at the six issues and sided with Commerce: (1) Commerce's calculation of normal value for respondent Linyi Chengen using its normal methodology and not its alternative input methodology; (2) Commerce's surrogate value data and calculation for Linyi Chengen's log inputs; (3) the agency's surrogate value calculation for labor; (4) whether a reply brief from the plaintiffs raises new arguments and has new information; (5) the surrogate value for Linyi Chengen's formaldehyde input; and (6) Commerce's selection of financial statements and calculation of surrogate financial ratios.
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 22 opinion granted plaintiff Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee's motion for a preliminary injunction in an Enforce and Protect Act case. Judge Richard Eaton ruled that the plaintiff sufficiently proved that it will be "immediately and irreparably" harmed without the injunction barring liquidation of importer Kingtom Aluminio's aluminum extrusions until the litigation has ended. The judge further ruled that the industry group has a "'fair chance' of success on the meritsm" given that there have been several cases with the same merchandise and parties where CBP has asked for voluntary remand or reversed itself.
Aspects Furniture International, plaintiff in an Enforce and Protect Act case, is waiving its arguments about CBP's lack of public summaries in an evasion proceeding, the plaintiff told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 20 motion. Asking the court to partially waive its November order on the public summaries, Aspects said that, because CBP is reopening the record to allow revised public versions of certain documents to be submitted and requesting that the plaintiff resubmit most of the public version submissions made during the investigation, the court's order is no longer needed (Aspects Furniture International v. United States, CIT # 20-03824).
The Commerce Department must reconsider its scope ruling which placed importer Valeo North America's T-series aluminum sheet under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum sheet from China, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Dec. 21 opinion. Judge Mark Barnett sent the ruling back to Commerce after finding that the agency did not properly support its inclusion of unregistered aluminum alloys to the scope with substantial evidence. While the judge did say that Commerce properly found that Valeo's sheet is a clad product, the agency must provide further explanation over the heat treatability of 3XXX-series alloys.