The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 11 order dismissed an appeal from Wheatland Tube Co. on whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in antidumping matters. Wheatland moved for a voluntary dismissal, telling the court that since the key case on this issue, Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., was not petitioned to the Supreme Court, the court should dismiss the appeal (see 2206280063). In Hyundai Steel, the Federal Circuit said that Commerce is not allowed to make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when determining normal value (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1300).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 6 order granted the unopposed motion from defendant-appellants, led by Atlas Tube, to dismiss the consolidated appeals of an antidumping duty case (Dong-A Steel v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2153). The case concerned whether the Commerce Department had the authority to grant a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value in an AD proceeding. The key Hyundai Steel case at the Federal Circuit established that the agency didn't have that authority.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 6 opinion ruled that the Commerce Department didn't err in using total adverse facts available rates to calculate the all-others rate in an antidumping review of steel nails from China. While the law bars the use of total AFA when calculating the all-others rate in AD investigations, it makes no mention of AD reviews, so the question is deferred to Commerce, the court ruled. The appellate court said Commerce was right to use partial AFA on respondent Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products over its main supplier's transshipment scheme.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 1 order dismissed antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube's appeal of the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded pipe from Turkey, granting the company's unopposed motion to toss the case. Wheatland filed the appeal to contest the Court of International Trade's ruling that Commerce couldn't make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test. After the Federal Circuit issued its judgment in the key Hyundai Steel case, plaintiff Borusan Mannesmann moved for affirmance on the issue. Wheatland then moved to toss the case, stating that Hyundai Steel "controls the issues" in the present appeal (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2097).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 1 order denied three Mexican tomato exporters' bid for a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in a case challenging the termination of an antidumping duty suspension agreement. Judges Kimberly Moore, Pauline Newman, Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk, Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto, Raymond Chen, Todd Hughes, Kara Stoll, Tiffany Cunningham and Leonard Stark denied the petition from Agricola La Primaveria, Bioparques de Occidente and Kaliroy Fresh, while Judge Jimmie Reyna did not participate (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2265, -2266, -2267).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shouldn't merely affirm an antidumping duty case concerning whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, AD petitioners, led by the American Cast Iron Pipe, said in a June 28 submission to the appellate court. Though the Federal Circuit said that Commerce can't make such an adjustment in the Hyundai Steel v. U.S. case, the present action has a "much different factual posture that merits consideration," so litigation should continue, the petitioners said (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1502).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on June 28 in a countervailing duty case over Indian exporter Uttam Galva's failure to report an affiliated cross-owned company. In a May opinion, the Federal Circuit said that the Commerce Department properly used adverse facts available, resulting in a 588.43% CVD rate, over the failure to report the affiliate in the CVD review on corrosion-resistant steel products from India. The court said the exporter didn't show that the affiliated company's financial statement could rebut the inclusion of 20 subsidy programs supposedly given to it, permitting the subsidies' inclusion in Uttam Galva's rate (Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2119).
Antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube Co. wants one of its appeals of an antidumping duty case over whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test dismissed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but says one other appeal should be kept alive. Filing a motion for voluntary dismissal, Wheatland said that its case was held in abeyance pending an appeal of the key case, Hyundai Steel Co v. U.S., to the Supreme Court, in which the Federal Circuit said that Commerce cannot make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test (see 2112100039). Since no writ of certiorari was filed to the nation's highest court by Wheatland in the Hyundai Steel case, the court should toss the present appeal, the petitioner argued.
Importer Prime Time Commerce failed to exhaust its administrative remedies for its argument that the Commerce Department should look to confidential information to provide "gap-filling" data needed to calculate a rate separate from the China-wide dumping margin for the importer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a June 28 opinion. Sustaining the Court of International Trade, Judges Alan Lourie, Haldane Mayer and Tiffany Cunningham also ruled that while CIT and Commerce erred in not accepting Prime Time's submissions since it is an "interested party," the error was a harmless one.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 28 opinion upheld the Court of International Trade's ruling in a case on the 2015-16 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cased pencils from China. Importer Prime Time Commerce had argued that Commerce should look to confidential information to provide "gap-filling" data needed to calculate a rate separate from the China-wide dumping margin. The court upheld that Prime Time Commerce failed to exhaust its administrative remedies during the remand period at the trade court. The appellate court ruled that while the trade court erred by finding that Commerce could not accept Prime Time's submissions as an "interested party," the error was a harmless one and does not require a remand.