The Commerce Department's refusal to reopen the record after an antidumping review was complete to correct ministerial errors "was a reasonable exercise of its discretion to preserve the finality of its decision," AD petitioner GEO Specialty Chemicals argued in a July 21 brief at the Court of International Trade. GEO said that Commerce's discretion to not amend the final results is "broad," and that the error was not discovered until "well after" the five-day window after the release of the final calculations to file ministerial errors (Nagase & Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).
The Commerce Department in July 20 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade stuck by its methodology used to calculate profit for the constructed value of antidumping duty respondent Building Systems de Mexico (BSM). Commerce also dropped the use of adverse facts available for one unreportable sale, used the date of substantial completion of a fabricated structural steel (FSS) project as the date of sale rather than the date of the purchase order or sales order acknowledgment, and didn't exclude the operating results of the business unit in question from the calculation of the constructed export price profit rate (Building Systems de Mexico v. U.S., CIT #20-00069).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's own precedent means it should have relied on the U.S. dollar price of home market sales in an antidumping duty case instead of foreign currentcy amounts to avoid large exchange rate fluctuations, plaintiff Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi argued in a July 18 reply brief. Filing its arguments at the Court of International Trade, Habas said that the "evidentiary record" shows Commerce should not have valued Habas's sales using the Turkish lira (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. United States, CIT #21-00527).
The Court of International Trade entered stipulated judgment July 19 in a case over denied Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions. The case was reported to have been settled via mediation in February, with the trade court saying all the issues brought by plaintiffs Voestalpine High Performance Metals and Edro Specialty Steels were settled (see 2202080057). The court then held a status conference to discuss the availability of a remedy for already-liquidated entries. The parties reached a remedy stipulating that CBP will reliquidate the liquidated entries without the Section 232 duties and that refunds will be paid with interest, the judgment said. Voestalpine and Edro brought their case to CIT to contest the denial of 502 exclusion requests for high alloyed specialty steel products (see 2110010032) (Voestalpine High Performance Metals v. U.S., CIT #21-00093).
CBP illegally found that importers American Pacific Plywood Inc. (APPI), Far East American and Liberty Woods International evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China by transshipping their goods through Vietnam, the importers argued in two July 20 complaints at the Court of International Trade. The importers' six- and 10-count complaints against CBP over its Enforce and Protect Act investigation include claims the agency illegally initiated the investigation, violated the importers' due process rights and improperly found that all of its imports were covered merchandise (Far East American v. United States, CIT #22-00213) (American Pacific Plywood Inc. v. U.S., CIT #22-00214).
The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion redenominated the U.S.'s counterclaim in a customs case brought by importer Cyber Power Systems as a defense, ruling that the U.S. does not have the statutory authority to make the counterclaim. With the ruling, Judge Claire Kelly denied Cyber Power's motion to dismiss the counterclaim as moot. Kelly ruled that none of the sections in the U.S. code cited by the U.S. give a basis for the counterclaim, which sought to reclassify imported cables.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A recent Court of International Trade opinion finding that the Commerce Department appropriately rejected untimely filed questionnaire responses and extension requests is relevant for antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube Co.'s case, the petitioner said in a July 19 notice of supplemental authority (Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Ind. v. United States, CIT #21-00587). In the recent decision in the Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S. case, the court said Commerce properly rejected the hour and 41 minutes-late submissions (see 2207150035). The plaintiffs said that technical difficulties and COVID-19 issues resulted in the late filings, but the court said Commerce did not abuse its discretion in denying the submissions since the plaintiffs' "experienced counsel" should have requested an extension earlier.
The Commerce Department in July 18 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade found that there was insufficient evidence to deny antidumping respondent Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited's (ZASF) Vietnam sales for use in calculating normal value. In the AD case, Commerce rejected ZASF's third-country sales to Vietnam for allegedly ending up in the U.S. to evade the relevant AD order -- this position was sent back by the trade court. On remand, the agency used the Vietnamese sales to calculate normal value, ending on a 1.73% dumping rate for ZASF (Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00031).