Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
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 After another exporter, Colakoglu Dis Ticaret, was revoked from the AD order following court proceedings, the ITC illegally denied any opportunity for Colakoglu's imports to be excluded from the antidumping duty injury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 first decision of the World Trade Organization's multiparty interim appeal arbitration arrangement, or MPIA, was judiciously economical, and also gave more deference to countries' antidumping authorities, trade experts said.
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.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 21 upheld the Commerce Department's pick of Brazil as the main surrogate country in an antidumping duty investigation on wood moldings and millwork from China. After clarifying the controlling question of the case is whether a "reasonable mind" could conclude that Commerce chose the best available information, Judge Gary Katzmann sustained the agency's pick of Brazil over Malaysia.
A World Trade Organization dispute settlement panel found the U.S. violated global trade rules by requiring goods made in Hong Kong to be marked as being made in China. Submitting its ruling Dec. 21, the three-arbitrator panel found the U.S. measures inconsistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, saying the U.S. failed to show the moves were made in response to an "emergency in international relations." The U.S. argued the change in the origin requirement was needed to safeguard American national security.
The Commerce Department cannot set the all-others rate in an antidumping duty review by taking a simple average of a de minimis and an adverse facts available rate, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Dec. 21 opinion. Sending the case back to Commerce for the fifth time, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves cited a key U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that made the same determination. The judge said that the court's rules "require the just and speedy determination of every action and proceeding," so the agency should refrain from "submitting the same unreasonable-as-applied, punitive all-others separate rate."
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 21 opinion denied U.S. Steel Corp.'s motion to intervene in a case brought by Seneca Foods Corp. on the Commerce Department's denial of Section 232 exclusion requests. The trade court cited the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in California Steel Industries v. U.S., in which the appellate court denied U.S. Steel the right to intervene in a different Section 232 exclusion denial challenge. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled that this precedent establishes that the steel maker doesn't have the right to intervene under the trade court's rules.
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.