Jacob Kopnick

Steel rebar importer Power Steel Co. paid Section 232 duties on its imports, and those payments were eligible to be deducted from its U.S. price in an antidumping case, the Department of Justice argued in a June 9 brief in the Court of International Trade (Power Steel Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #20-03771).

The Commerce Department can apply total adverse facts available for a mandatory respondent's failure to provide its factors of production (FPO) data on a control number (CONNUM)-specific basis in an antidumping case, the Court of International Trade ruled in a June 9 opinion. Judge Leo Gordon, in a consolidated action challenging an antidumping administrative review on certain steel nails from China, said that Commerce had the right to switch to a CONNUM-specific reporting requirement and that the mandatory respondent should have known about this switch. Gordon also found that Commerce was justified in using a total AFA rate for two mandatory respondents to calculate the non-individually reviewed respondent rate.

JSW Steel (USA) is accusing three U.S. steelmakers of a conspiracy and group "boycott" to hinder JSW's ability to make and sell competing steel products, according to a June 8 complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Following the imposition of Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum in 2018, JSW claims U.S. Steel, Nucor and AK Steel owner Cleveland-Cliffs, which control 80% of domestic steel capacity, colluded to refuse to sell raw material to JSW.

The Commerce Department "finally" came to a conclusion in an antidumping administrative review on large power transformers from South Korea that is in line with "record facts, the law and basic standards of investigative fairness," mandatory respondent Hyosung Heavy Industries Corporation said in June 7 comments on remand results. Joined by the other mandatory respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries and the Department of Justice, Hyosung voiced its approval of the remand results in the Court of International Trade, which scrapped the application of total adverse facts available after DOJ requested a voluntary remand to "reconsider" the original determinations (Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #18-00066).

The "U.S. shipping point" must be a location from which tomatoes ship from inside the U.S., and any expenses between the U.S. border and that point should be included in reference prices under the 2019 antidumping duty suspension agreement on Mexican tomatoes, Mexican exporters said in a June 3 memo. The memo responds to allegations of non-compliance during an administrative review of the agreement from the Florida Tomato Exchange, which says imports should be judged based on the price immediately after crossing the border. The FTE's interpretation cuts directly against the plain language of the agreement and uses an interpretation of the term "free on board (FOB) U.S. shipping point" that would lead to "absurd results" in how the agreement is applied, the Mexican growers said.

The Commerce Department's decision on remand to reverse its affirmative determination that certain hardwood plywood products from China circumvented antidumping and countervailing duties "defies a wealth of evidence about what actually occurred in the hardwood plywood market," petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood said in June 7 comments on Commerce's remand results. Commerce ignored multiple pieces of contradictory evidence in making its determination following a Court of International Trade opinion remanding the case and made a determination that undermines its own conclusion that certain hardwood plywood was not "later-developed" after the AD/CVD orders, the coalition said (Shelter Forest International Acquisition, Inc. et al v. United States, CIT #19-00212).

The Commerce Department should have used the highest margin for the sole mandatory respondent in an antidumping case since the agency decided to rely on adverse facts available in the investigation, domestic silicon metal producers Globe Specialty Metals and Mississippi Silicon said in a June 7 complaint in the Court of International Trade. The two producers also challenged Commerce's decision to disregard that rate based on a financial statement from a firm "whose financial results were dominated by operations unrelated to the production of silicon metal" (Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. and Mississippi Silicon LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00231).

The Court of International Trade issued a confidential opinion in an antidumping case on welded line pipe from South Korea sustaining the Commerce Department's remand results in part and remanding in part, according to a June 7 filing. According to a letter filed by Judge Claire Kelly, the public version of the decision is expected either on or shortly after June 15 once all parties review bracketed information to determine its level of confidentiality. The case, originally filed by Husteel Co., concerns, among other things, Commerce's finding of a particular market situation in Korea for welded line pipe, the agency's reliance, or lack thereof, on a mandatory respondent's third country sales to calculate normal value and Commerce's reclassification of a respondent's reported losses associated with suspended production as general and administrative expenses.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department complied with the Court of International Trade's remand instructions by switching from an application of adverse facts available to neutral facts available in an antidumping case on frozen warmwater shrimp from India, defendant-intervenor Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee said in June 3 comments on the remand results. CIT issued the remand instructions (see 2102030006) after finding that Commerce failed to "provide adequate assistance" to Elque Group, a respondent in the case and small company that was found to have provided adequate notice to Commerce that it needed assistance (Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd., Bay Seafood Pvt. Ltd., and Elque & Co. v. United States, CIT #19-00201). Commerce applied AFA originally since Elque Group's cost data was deemed unreliable by the agency.