Kazakh silicon metal exporter Tau-Ken Temir (TKT) and the Kazakh Ministry of Trade and Integration asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for 7,000 more words for its reply brief in a case on the countervailing duty investigation on silicon metal from Kazakhstan. The exporter and the government agency said they need double its current word count to respond to the reply briefs filed by the U.S. and the petitioners, which collectively are over 20,000 words (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Oct. 20 order granted the U.S. request for 55 more days to file its reply brief in the massive Section 301 litigation, despite an objection from the plaintiff-appellants, led by HMTX Industries. The government's reply brief is now due Dec. 21 following the extension, which was the second of its kind following a 60-day extension (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
The Commerce Department wasn't required to issue exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer a questionnaire for purposes of giving the company a separate antidumping duty rate, the U.S. government told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Oct. 20 reply brief. The government said 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)(1) -- the statute relied on by Jin Tiong to claim that Commerce can't limit the number of respondents when the number is small -- doesn't speak to a process that Commerce must follow in carrying out its separate rate examinations (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 20 order granted the U.S. request for a remand in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case to review the implications of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In that decision, the appellate court found CBP's failure to grant Enforce and Protect Act respondents access to the confidential information in the proceeding violated their due process rights (Newtrend USA Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00347).
The Commerce Department legally found that the Korean government didn't provide a countervailable benefit through its provision of electricity to respondents in the countervailing duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Oct. 23. Judges Raymond Chen, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham said Commerce sufficiently carried out a less-than-adequate-remuneration (LTAR) analysis after its original preferential rate analysis fell short before the appellate court in 2019.
The EU General Court on Oct. 18 rejected two sanctions delisting applications from Belarusian automakers Minsk Automobile Plant and BelAZ. In separate applications, the companies said the European Council failed to notify them of the sanctions, failed in the wording of the companies' names in the sanctions listings and failed in assessing the facts surrounding their designations.
South Korean exporter Hyundai Steel Co. will appeal an August Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's finding the South Korean government's free provision of port usage rights at the Port of Incheon provided Hyundai with a countervailable benefit. According to the notice of appeal, Hyudai will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court said the agency reasonably found it should conduct a revenue forgone analysis instead of a less than adequate remuneration analysis since Hyundai's non-payment of port usage fees involved a type of financial contribution via forgone revenue instead of the provision of services (see 2308220031) (Hyundai Steel v. United States, CIT # 21-00536).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 20 opinion granted exporter Midwest-CBK's motion to ditch its case on whether sales from a Canadian warehouse to U.S. customers are sales for export to the U.S. or domestic sales. Following a prior CIT ruling finding that the company's imports are sales "for exportation to the United States" and that the goods were not deemed liquidated, the case shifted to how to value the goods.
The Commerce Department properly saddled countervailing duty respondent Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co. (GRT) with adverse facts available related to its alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 20 opinion. While Commerce and the trade court have rejected the use of AFA for this program where a respondent can submit verifications that their U.S. buyers didn't use the program, Judge Mark Barnett sustained AFA here since GRT failed to raise its claims against the use of AFA administratively.
The International Trade Commission failed to give Russian exporter PAO TMK a chance to comment on issues in the International Trade Commission's negligibility analysis as part of the injury proceeding on seamless pipe from South Korea, Russia and Ukraine, the Court of International Trade ruled. In an Oct. 12 opinion made public Oct. 20, Judge M. Miller Baker said TMK should be able to submit comments on the commission's sole reliance on questionnaire data from one unnamed company, "Company A," on goods from Germany and another unnamed company, "Company B," on goods from Mexico.