The Commerce Department issued a final rule making various changes to its antidumping and countervailing duty procedures, notably altering its nonmarket economy policy in AD cases by allowing entities in third countries "owned or controlled" by nonmarket economies to be subject to the country-wide AD rate for that nation.
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties (AD/CVD)
Antidumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD) are tariffs levied on imported merchandise sold in the U.S. at artificially low or subsidized prices, to level the playing field for U.S. companies. Antidumping duties result from a foreign industry selling its products at lower than the price it sells goods in its home country to gain a competitive edge. Countervailing duties result from subsidies from a foreign government to specific industries or products to gain a competitive advantage abroad. A U.S. company may petition the International Trade Commission (ITC) and Commerce Department to determine whether the goods subject to the petition were sold for less than fair value or benefited from unfair subsidization. If Commerce finds evidence of subsidization or dumping, and the ITC finds it caused injury to a domestic industry, they will direct CBP to suspend liquidation of entries of the relevant goods and begin collecting AD/CVD on those entries.
The U.S. opposed Canadian lumber exporters' bid to get the court to clarify its instruction to CBP to "discontinue ... the collection of" cash deposits made on entries brought in before a prior Court of International Trade decision, which said it wasn't equitable to subject the companies' exports to the countervailing duty order on Canadian softwood lumber (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).
The U.S. on Sept. 23 told the Court of International Trade an exporter "confuses statutory schemes" when it claims that past negative antidumping and countervailing duty determinations shield against anti-circumvention findings on the same goods from the same countries. Defending the Commerce Department's circumvention findings of the AD/CVD orders on circular welded carbon quality steel pipes and tubes from China, India and South Korea, the government said exporter SeAH Steel Vina Corp. conflated the criteria for AD/CVD investigations with those for circumvention inquiries (SeAH Steel Vina Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol # 23-00256).
The Commerce Department on July 12 released a proposed rule updating various aspects of its antidumping and countervailing duty regulations. The agency said the changes largely "codify existing procedures and methodologies" and also "create or revise" provisions related to the "collection of cash deposits," use of AD rates on nonmarket economy nations, calculation of an all-others' rate, respondent selection and "attribution of subsidies received by cross-owned input producers and utility providers to producers of subject merchandise."
The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 doesn't require payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, to affected domestic producers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said July 15. Judges Alan Lourie, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham said that the statute only provides for interest that's "earned on" antidumping and countervailing duties and "assessed under" the associated AD or CVD order.
The U.S. is seeking over $1.1 million in unpaid antidumping and countervailing duties plus a $2 million civil penalty against importer Forest Group USA and its alleged successor company, Drapery Hardware USA, the government said in a customs penalty suit filed July 10 (U.S. v. Forest Group USA, CIT # 24-00117).
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during a July 11 oral argument probed the government and parties to an antidumping and countervailing duty scope case on its standard of review in the scope case. Judge Sharon Prost said at the outset that the court is "being very careful" in terms of what it says on standard of review issues in "light of all of the recent opinions and litigation concerning standard of review" in administrative law issues (Worldwide Door Components v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1532).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 8 dismissed importer Rimco's challenge of antidumping and countervailing duties on its steel wheel entries, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Commerce Department last week issued new antidumping and countervailing duty regulations, which, most notably, lifted the prohibition on the consideration of transnational subsidies in CVD cases (see 2403210070).
A World Trade Organization dispute panel found that certain elements of Australian antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings on wind towers, deep drawn stainless steel sinks and railway wheels from China violate WTO commitments. Issuing its findings March 26, the panel recommended that Australia bring its measures into conformity with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.