The Commerce Department incorrectly concluded that exemptions from Turkey's Bank and Insurance Transactions Tax (BITT) were countervailable subsidies, in the final results of the 2020 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey, exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret said in a June 21 complaint. Kaptan also took issue with Commerce's valuation benchmark for industrial land in Turkey (Kaptan Demir Çelik Endüstrisi ve Ticaret A.Ş. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00131).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Commerce Department made subsidies an "afterthought" when it failed to properly evaluate their impact on potential surrogates in a case involving the administrative review of an antidumping duty order on steel nails from Oman, AD respondent Oman Fasteners told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 16 response brief (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1039).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on June 16 in a case on whether the Commerce Department has the statutory authority to conduct expedited countervailing duty reviews. The appellate court said the agency does have the authority under the Uruguay Round Agreement Act's enactment of certain provisions that favor individual company determinations and the URAA's grant of regulatory-implementation power to Commerce (see 2304250061) (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1021).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, for failing to file an opening brief. The company filed its suit to contest CBP's inaction on its requests to void two denied protests on Berger's Canvas Banner Matisse coated fabric imports, which were hit with antidumping duties on artist canvas from China. Berger claimed that the imports were not subject to the order and CBP should not have liquidated the entries since the Commerce Department had opened a scope inquiry on the imports. After the Court of International Trade tossed the suit for lack of jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, the Federal Circuit in March rejected Berger's bid for a temporary injunction, which would have required CBP to return the goods to unliquidated status or suspend the firm's protests (see 2303160023) (Printing Textiles, dba Berger Textiles v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1576).
The Commerce Department may still use single respondents in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, despite a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that found fault with the practice in one proceeding, a Justice Department attorney said during Georgetown Law's Annual International Trade Update conference on June 13.
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The U.S. has yet to appear in a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the 2019-20 antidumping duty administrative review on aluminum wire and cable from China brought by importer Repwire and exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer. The appeal concerns a Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's withdrawal of a separate-rate questionnaire it erroneously issued to Jin Tiong (see 2303200039). In a text-only notice to the U.S., the Federal Circuit said that the government has failed to file an entry of appearance, which could lead to dismissal "or other action as deemed appropriate by the court" (Repwire v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
Trailer wheels manufactured by Asia Wheel in Thailand were incorrectly ruled to be within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain steel wheels from China, U.S. importers Trailstar and TexTrail said in a pair of June 9 complaints at the Court of International Trade. Both complaints asked the court to find Commerce's final scope ruling illegal and to remand the ruling to the department (Trailstar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00097, and Textrail v. U.S., CIT # 23-00099).
The Commerce Department's new practice related to questionnaire response extensions supports exporter Tau-Ken Temir's claims against the agency's use of adverse facts available due to missed filing deadlines, TKT told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a notice of supplemental authority (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).