The Commerce Department must reconsider its final determination in an antidumping duty investigation into truck and bus tires from China, the Court of International Trade said in a Jan. 24 decision. Judge Timothy Stanceu sent the matter back to Commerce so it could reconsider its decision to deny the two groups of plaintiffs -- led by Guizhou Tyre Co. and Double Coin Holdings -- separate rate status in the investigation. The judge said that the agency's reasoning was "vague and ambiguous" as to whether its inquiry focused on the Chinese government's control of the plaintiffs' export activities.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Jan. 25 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
Antidumping petitioner Wheatland Tube Company wants a stay in two cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit until the appellate court issues its final ruling in a separate antidumping duty action. The separate case concerns whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment in the sales-below-cost test when determining normal value. In a December 2021 decision in this case, Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., the Federal Circuit said that no such adjustment is allowed (see 2112100039). Most recently, the appellate court granted an extension of time to file for a full court rehearing of the decision (see 2201030067). Wheatland Tube wants the stay since the case Hyundai Steel concerns "issues virtually identical to those in this case and Hyundai Steel will ultimately dictate the outcome of this appeal." In response, the Federal Circuit granted a separate motion from the Department of Justice to extend its time to file the case's opening brief while the court considers the motion to stay (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1172, #22-1174).
The Commerce Department properly found that importer Vandewater International Inc.'s steel branch outlets are covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China, Island Industries told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 21 brief. Vandewater's and plaintiff-intervenors Sigma Corporation's and Smith-Cooper International's arguments over any differences between their steel branch outlets and BWPF are "factually inconsequential," the brief said (Vandewater International v. United States, CIT #18-00199).
Antidumping respondent Cheng Shin Rubber Industry Co.'s bid to indefinitely extend a preliminary injunction should be rejected by the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice said in a Jan. 18 brief. DOJ said that Cheng Shin failed to show that it will suffer immediate irreparable harm for its entries made beyond the original expiration date of the injunction -- June 30, 2022 -- and that if its entries beyond this date are at risk of being liquidated, that the exporter can just request an extension of the injunction (Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #21-00398).
Since antidumping duty respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries served as a mandatory respondent in five consecutive ADD reviews, the Commerce Department reasonably found that the company did not act to the best of its ability by not being entirely forthcoming in its reporting of the gross unit prices for its home market sales, ADD review petitioner ABB Enterprise said. Responding to Hyundai's arguments in its case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 24 brief, ABB said that Hyundai's reporting error was the result of "carelessness and inattentiveness" while preparing its data. For this reason, the imposition of total adverse facts available is appropriate, ABB said (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems v. United States, Fed Cir. #21-2312).
The Commerce Department's decision to compare two foreign manufacturers' production processes with integrated steel mills from China was unreasonable, Bruneian company HLDS (B) Steel and Philippine company HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co. told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 24 complaint. Such a comparison -- used in a recent anti-circumvention inquiry -- was unreasonable since integrated steel mills make primary steel in many forms, not just oil country tubular goods -- the merchandise subject to the anti-circumvention inquiry, the complaint said (HLDS (B) Steel SDN BHD v. United States, CIT #21-00638).
The trade provisions of the America COMPETES Act of 2022, the House's answer to the Senate U.S. Innovation and Opportunity Act, propose dramatic changes to antidumping and countervailing laws, a restriction on future Miscellaneous Tariff Bill lists, and would bar Chinese goods from entering under the de minimis statute. The House Rules Committee also released a section by section summary.
Europe's top court, the European Court of Justice, annulled an EU General Court ruling which struck down the European Commission's antidumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (other than stainless steel) from China. The Jan. 20 decision from the ECJ said that the General Court was wrong to hold that the commission was required to consider the effects of the dumped imports of every product type at issue sold by the industry for that product. The ECJ further ruled that the General Court erred when it required the commission to examine the extent to which the prices of the 17 product types may have contributed to the fall in the prices of the sampled EU producers. The decision sends the case back to the General Court, where litigation will resume over the fate of the antidumping duties.
The Court of International Trade, in a confidential opinion, sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case over the countervailing duty investigation of cold-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. Following litigation at CIT, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the trade court's ruling, ultimately finding that an alleged provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration subsidy program failed to provide a benefit and thus, was not countervailable. On remand again at CIT, Commerce further laid out its rationale, concurrent with the Federal Circuit opinion, for finding that a benefit does not exist. Judge Mark Barnett told litigants in a Jan. 21 letter to review the decision for any potential confidential information in the opinion and to report back by Jan. 28 (POSCO v. United States, CIT Consol. #16-00225).