After the Trump administration released a memo outlining the scope of trade action to be taken during his term, one thing became clear, according to a variety of trade attorneys: antidumping duty and countervailing duty rates are about to soar.
In a complaint brought Jan. 21 in the Court of International Trade, exporter East Asia Aluminum Company alleged that a Commerce Department investigation failed to properly account for its scrap byproduct, which East Asia Aluminum continuously reintroduces back into production, which caused a chain of circumstances resulting in a far-too-late affirmative critical circumstances determination (East Asia Aluminum Company v. United States, CIT # 24-00255).
In a complaint before the Court of International Trade filed Jan. 20, two exporters alleged that the Commerce Department failed to correct multiple ministerial errors during an antidumping duty review on Chinese activated carbon (Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00262).
Various exporters led by Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. challenged the Commerce Department's antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on aluminum foil from China at the Court of International Trade (Hangzhou Five Star Aluminum Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00231) (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00228).
The Commerce Department adequately calculated the boat freight surrogate value in an antidumping duty review without making an adjustment for distance, the U.S. argued. Responding to respondent Giti Tire Global Trading's motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade, the government said Commerce showed that its calculation was in line with its past practice (Giti Tire Global Trading v. United States, CIT # 24-00083).
Antidumping petitioner Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment took to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 3 to challenge the Commerce Department's surrogate value picks in the 2022-23 review of the antidumping duty order on mobile access equipment from China. The petitioner filed a 12-count complaint to contest 12 different surrogate data picks (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. United States, CIT # 24-00219).
The Court of International Trade in a pair of decisions sustained the Commerce Department's use of neutral facts available against respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. in the 33rd review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China and the agency's use of adverse facts available against the respondent in the AD order's 34th review. Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce reasonably found in the 34th review that Tainai was aware of its unaffiliated suppliers' past non-cooperation but failed to work to the best of its ability to secure their cooperation.
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.
The Commerce Department didn't properly explain its approach to its surrogate financial ratio calculation in the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Dec. 9. Judges Timothy Dyk and Kara Stoll said Commerce failed to provide an "adequate explanation" regarding its treatment of overhead costs in coming up with the surrogate financial ratio.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 9 remanded the Commerce Department's surrogate financial ratios calculation in the 2017-18 review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. Judges Timothy Dyk and Kara Stoll said Commerce's approach to overhead costs in Malaysian company Hanwha Q Cells Malaysia's financial statement "is so unclear that it is insufficient." Judge Leonard Stark disagreed with the majority, finding there to be sufficient evidence to support the agency's approach and charging the majority with providing relief that was not sought by exporter and plaintiff Risen Energy Co. However, the three judges agreed in sustaining Commerce's surrogate value picks for Risen's backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs.