The Court of International Trade on Sept. 15 sustained the Commerce Department's decision on remand to replace existing Brazilian surrogate value information for antidumping duty respondent Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry's plywood input with Malaysian import data. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves upheld the move, which led to a slight drop in Senmao's AD rate to 14.35% from 16.17%, after no challenges to the remand results were received.
Antidumping duty respondent Jiangxi Brother Pharmaceutical on Sept. 11 filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on vanillin from China. The respondent challenged Commerce's "calculation of the surrogate value for the by-product Hydroquinone," selection of the financial statements used as the basis for the financial ratios used in the surrogate value calculation, and the use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping (Jiangxi Brother Pharmaceutical Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00187).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 15 sustained the Commerce Department's surrogate value pick for antidumping respondent Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry's plywood input in the 2019-21 review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from China after three prior remands. After Commerce repeatedly stuck by its decision to adjust Brazilian plywood data to remove data from Spain, the agency changed course in its third remand results, deciding to use "historical data for Brazilian plywood imports and period of review import data from Malaysia." No party challenged the result.
Exporter Zhejiang Dingli Machinery challenged the Commerce Department's decisions made on remand to use Maersk data to value ocean freight and value minor fabricated components using Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8431.20.90 data. Filing a response to the agency's remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on mobile access equipment from China, Dingli said the Maersk price quotes are unreliable and that the agency strayed from its normal practice in picking the data for subheading 8431.20.90 (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. United States, CIT # 22-00152).
The U.S. defended the Commerce Department's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, backing, among other things, the agency's decision to rely on the financial statements of Timken Romania alone as part of its surrogate value calculations and the decision to deduct the cost of Section 301 duties from respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing's U.S. price (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1405).
The Commerce Department failed to select more than one respondent in both the antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations on solar cells from Thailand, the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee argued last week in a pair of complaints. The alliance, which served as the petitioner for both investigations, said that Commerce failed to abide by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit precedent by not selecting more than one respondent where multiple companies are subject to the investigations (American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee v. United States, CIT #s 25-00165, -00167).
Exporters brought a number complaints Aug. 22 and Aug. 25 challenging the Commerce Department’s decision to countervail transnational subsidies in its investigations on solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam (Boviet Solar Technology v. United States, CIT #s 25-00160 and 25-00162; JA Solar Vietnam Co. v. United States, CIT #s 25-00157 and 25-00158; Trina Solar Science & Technology (Thailand) v. United States, CIT # 25-00166 and 25-00169; Canadian Solar International v. United States, CIT #s 25-00159 and 25-00161; Jinko Solar (Vietnam) Industries Company v. United States, CIT #s 25-00171 and 25-00172).
The Commerce Department properly relied on Maersk data as the surrogate value for ocean freight and found that certain fabricated steel components used by respondent Zhejiang Dingli Machinery shouldn't be valued using data under Harmonized System subheadings covering "primary or raw steel products," petitioner Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment argued. Submitting remand comments to the Court of International Trade on Aug. 11, the coalition urged the court to accept the agency's remand results in the antidumping duty investigation on mobile access equipment from China (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00152).
In a July 21 opinion made public July 25, the Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department’s administrative review of antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese-origin aluminum foil, saying that the department had to reconsider or explain why it refused the review’s exporters a double remedies offset. It said the relevant law requires the department to calculate a subsidy's price impact based on what the price might have been without the subsidy, not on whether prices declined during the review period.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 28 sustained the Commerce Department's non-market economy policy in antidumping duty proceedings despite the fact that the agency hadn't codified the policy in its regulations at the time the underlying review was challenged. Judges Todd Hughes, William Bryson and Leonard Stark said the Federal Circuit has a long line of cases upholding the policy and that, even if those cases didn't exist, Commerce didn't need to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking to implement the policy.