The U.S. will appear for oral argument in an antidumping duty case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit despite appellants Risen Energy Co. and Canadian Solar waiving their rights to appear. Risen initially brought suit to challenge the 2017-18 AD review on solar cells from China. The company said the Commerce Department failed to use the best information when setting surrogate values for the company's backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs (see 2305170049). DOJ attorney Ashley Akers will appear for the government (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave text-only notice to exporter Canadian Solar that it failed to respond to the court's notice of oral argument in an appeal on the 2017-18 antidumping duty review on solar cells from China. Exporter Risen Energy Co. filed the appeal to claim that the Commerce Department failed to use the best information when setting surrogate values for the company's backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs (see 2305170049). While Risen waived its right to appear at oral argument (see 2408020019), the court told Canadian Solar that failure to respond to notice of oral argument "may result in dismissal or other action as deemed appropriate by the court" (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).
Exporter Risen Energy Co. waived oral argument in its appeal of the 2017-18 antidumping duty review on solar cells from China. Risen filed the appeal to claim that the Commerce Department failed to use the best information when setting surrogate values for the company's backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs (see 2305170049). The exporter also challenged the agency's calculation of its financial ratios. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set oral argument in the case for Sept. 3 (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).
The Commerce Department on Aug. 2 said Vietnam will continue to be treated as a non-market economy in antidumping duty proceedings. Releasing the results of its review of the nation's market status, the agency said that despite "substantive reforms made over the past 20 years, the extensive government involvement in Vietnam’s economy distorts Vietnamese prices and costs," rendering them "unusable" for calculating the duties.
The Commerce Department improperly decided that it can use Romania as the primary surrogate in the 2021-22 antidumping duty review on chlorinated isocyanurates from China after Romania wasn't submitted as a potential surrogate prior to the surrogate country comment deadline, exporters Heze Huayi Chemical Co. and Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. argued (Bio-Lab v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00024).
After two remands by Court of International Trade Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, the Commerce Department continued to sustain its use of Brazilian and Malaysian surrogate data in the final results of its 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, again assigning a plaintiff exporter a 16.17% AD margin (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00190).
The Court of International Trade on June 5 sustained some and remanded some of the Commerce Department's surrogate value picks in the 16th review of the antidumping duty order on Vietnamese catfish, covering entries in 2018 to 2019.
The Commerce Department stuck by its decision to use India as its primary surrogate country on remand at the Court of International Trade in a case on the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-00105).
The Court of International Trade on May 31 sent back some and sustained some of the Commerce Department's surrogate value selections regarding antidumping duty respondent Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co.'s inputs in the AD investigation on mobile access equipment from China.
The Court of International Trade on May 31 sustained parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on mobile access equipment from China. Judge M. Miller Baker sent back Commerce's surrogate value data on ocean-shipping costs for respondent Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co., which was taken from Descartes, Freightos and Drewry, along with the SV data for minor fabricated steel components. However, Baker sustained Commerce's surrogate value picks related to two of Dingli's motor inputs. The court also said Commerce appropriately accepted certain factual information submissions from Dingli, despite the submissions violating the agency's regulations, since it was the only chance for Dingli to rebut the SV data on the record.