Jacob Kopnick

The Court of International Trade should again reject the Commerce Department's determination on remand that the physical characteristics of outlets don't differ from butt-weld pipe fittings for antidumping duty scope purposes, Vandewater International said in Sept. 24 comments at the Court of International Trade (Vandewater International Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #18-00199).

The Commerce Department properly hit antidumping respondent Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems Co. with adverse facts available for its failure to produce information on its cost shifting practice, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in an Oct. 4 opinion. Upholding a decision of the Court of International Trade, a three-judge panel at the appellate court agreed that Commerce's decision to cancel verification of Hyundai's information was properly supported.

Shine Shipping and Shine International (Shine), companies that arrange for the shipment of goods with vessel operating carriers, were found not to be directly liable for the shipment of counterfeit Nike footwear by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in a Sept. 30 opinion (Nike, Inc. v. B&H Customs Services, Inc., et al., S.D.N.Y. #20-01214).

The Commerce Department has not shown good cause to delay filing its remand results in an antidumping case by 21 days, Turkish steel exporter and plaintiff Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret argued in an Oct. 1 brief at the Court of International Trade. While sympathetic to the agency's rationale of a large case load necessitating the extra time, the excuse falls flat since these conditions are not unusual or extraordinary circumstances, Borusan argued. Commerce also failed to show that these issues were unanticipated, the brief said (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00056).

The Court of International Trade granted the Commerce Department's request for a voluntary remand in a case over an error the agency made in its liquidation instructions following an antidumping review. Chief Judge Mark Barnett gave the court until Oct. 15 to submit the results of its redetermination (Optima Steel International, LLC, et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00327).

The Commerce Department wants a voluntary remand to reconsider a bevy of blanket Section 232 exclusion denials it issued to Voestalpine High Performance Metals Corp. and Edro Specialty Steels, the agency told the Court of International Trade in a Sept. 30 filing (Voestalpine High Performance Metals Corp., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00093). Judge Miller Baker then stayed the time for plaintiffs to respond to this remand motion “until further order of the court,” in an order. The judge then instructed all parties to let the court know their position on court-annexed mediation to settle the issue of remand.

CBP's Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate found that Pacific Building Material, Deco Kitchen Cabinet & Bath, Skyview Cabinet USA and Greentree Trading Company evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities and components thereof from China, in a Sept. 16 determination. The companies evaded the orders via Malaysia, CBP said, with the importers claiming the goods were made by Malaysia-based manufacturer Rowenda Kitchen Sdn. Bhd.

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

A conflict of interest allegation did not cause an antidumping duty investigation respondent to untimely file its questionnaire responses, the Commerce Department argued in a Sept. 27 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to Tau-Ken Temir's brief explaining that this allegation was the reason for the delay in filing the responses, Commerce said that it did not abuse its discretion when it found that the petitioner did not interfere with TKT's ability to file the questionnaire responses (Tau-Ken Temir LLP et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00173).

The Commerce Department needs more information before it will consider allegations that solar cell imports from Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam are circumventing antidumping duties on China, the agency said in a Sept. 29 letter. Penned to Timothy Brightbill, lead counsel for an anonymous group of domestic U.S. solar cell manufacturers that seeks the inquiry, the letter requested a slew of information from the domestic producers to clear threshold concerns, including the full name and address of each member of the anonymous coalition.