The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 6 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from India. On remand, the agency used respondent Z.A. Sea Food's Vietnamese sales to calculate normal value. The domestic shrimp industry contested this, arguing Commerce should use constructed value since there is no evidence the shrimp sold in Vietnam was actually consumed by the Vietnamese customers. Judge Gary Katzmann deemed the domestic industry's claims as waived "due to the lack of adequate argument."
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 6 opinion upheld parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded line pipe from South Korea. Judge Claire Kelly upheld Commerce's decisions to find there was no particular market situation in the Korean hot-rolled coil steel market, recalculate respondent Nexteel's costs without making a non-prime product adjustment and recalculate the non-examined companies' rate. The judge again sent back the agency's further explanation of its classification of Nexteel's suspended production line costs.
The U.S. and Enforce and Protect Act petitioner Texarkana Aluminum "failed to address the determinations challenged by" plaintiff AA Metals "in any meaningful way, often ignoring or misconstruing the issues" in the case and playing a "game of gotcha," AA Metals argued in a Dec. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. In particular, the U.S. pushed "the same flawed analysis" from the Commerce Department's scope finding by arguing that certain [redacted] temper products are subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China (AA Metals v. United States, CIT #22-00051).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 2 order, denied a petition from plaintiff-appellants ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings Co. for a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in a case over whether a protest is needed to retroactively apply Section 301 duty exclusions (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
The Commerce Department improperly used adverse facts available on antidumping respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. since the agency failed to notify the respondent about the supposed deficiencies in its submissions, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Dec. 2 opinion. Saha Thai omitted sales of line pipe from its U.S. sales database, claiming that line pipe is not within the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Judge Stephen Vaden found that Commerce did not notify the respondent that its sales database was deficient, remanding the use of AFA. If Commerce continues to use AFA on remand, it must ensure that it complies with the notice requirement, the judge ruled.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Nov. 29 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 2 opinion found that the Commerce Department illegally used adverse facts available on antidumping respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. Saha Thai omitted sales of line pipe from its U.S. sales database, claiming that line pipe is not within the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Judge Stephen Vaden found Commerce did not notify the respondent that its sales database was deficient, remanding the use of AFA. If Commerce continues to use AFA on remand, it must ensure it complies with the notice requirement, the judge ruled.
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 1 opinion rejected the U.S.' motion to partially dismiss the alternative claims of jurisdiction in a case over the Commerce Department's assessment of antidumping duties. Judge Gary Katzmann said the question of the opinion was whether a party can dismiss an alternatively pleaded ground of jurisdiction. The judge said that since the U.S.'s motion "as styled is not the proper vehicle," the motion is denied.
CBP erred when it assessed antidumping and countervailing duties on imported sinks and kits from Taiwan as if they had originated from China, importer and seller RH Peterson said in a Nov. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade (RH Peterson Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00099).