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.
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).
Plaintiffs in a conflict-of-interest suit, led by Amsted Rail Co., plan to appeal the Court of International Trade's judgment dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction regardless of the outcome of their injunction motion, the plaintiffs said in a Nov. 30 response to a court order. However, ARC said that it is "mindful" that developments in the present case against the International Trade Commission and its related action against the Commerce Department "may bear on whether an appeal should be voluntarily dismissed before or after the appeal is docketed" (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).
The Court of International Trade should deny fish importer Southern Cross Seafoods' motion to expedite a case concerning the importer's application for preapproval to enter Chilean sea bass since the question of jurisdiction should settle the action, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 28 reply brief. The motion to expedite is "premature and unwarranted," and failing to expedite would not deprive Southern Cross of its requested relief, the U.S. said (Southern Cross Seafoods v. United States, CIT # 22-00299).
CBP cannot rely on country trade patterns as specific evidence for evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties in Enforce and Protect Act proceedings, importer Skyview Cabinets USA argued in a Nov. 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. CBP also erred by relying on statements from a corporate investigator, paid for by the alleger in the EAPA case, that are "inconsistent with the record." While Masterbrand tries to "downplay" facts presented by Skyview by using words such as "discrepancies, deficiencies, inconsistencies, and omissions," CBP never investigated any of these perceived discrepancies as required by law, Skyview said (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, CIT #22-00080).
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 1 opinion denied the U.S.' partial motion to dismiss a case challenging the Commerce Department's decisions to issue liquidation instructions after an antidumping review based on its automatic assessment policy and to set an effective date for a duty determined through litigation. The plaintiff, Goodluck India, designated Sections 1581(c) and (i) as alternative grounds of jurisdiction for its claims. The U.S. sought to partially dismiss the complaint for its claims of jurisdiction under Section 1581(c). Judge Gary Katzmann said that since the motion "as styled is not the proper vehicle," the motion is denied.
The Court of International Trade stayed a case from importer Hanwha Q Cells America (Hanwha) (Hanwha Q Cells America v. U.S., CIT # 22-00305), pending the resolution of a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit it says is related. The case challenges Presidential Proclamation 10101, which reimposed safeguard duties on previously excluded bifacial crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) solar panels, was issued in violation of the Trade Act of 1974. The legality of the modification proclamation is "common to other cases," Hanwha said. One of those cases is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit, Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 2022-1392, so staying the current case until those issues are resolved by the higher court promotes judicial economy, Hanwha argued. A stay presents no hardship to the government, Hanwha said. Staying the proceedings would not impact the government's ability to collect ongoing import duties and it saves DOJ from devoting resources to relitigating the same issues as it had previously in Solar Energy, it said. The court agreed, staying the matter.
The Court of International Trade in a confidential Nov. 28 opinion sent back parts and upheld parts of the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Vietnam. In a letter issued to the litigants, Judge Timothy Reif gave the parties until close of business Dec. 5 to review any confidential information to be bracketed in the opinion. In the complaint, the plaintiffs, led by Ashley Furniture Industries, challenged Commerce's reliance on Emirates Sleep Systems' financial statements in its decision to use Indian Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7320.90.90 as a surrogate value for pocket coil innerspring units and the agency's refusal to list Ashley Furniture Trading Co. and Ashley Furniture Industries as eligible for the dumping rates given to certain companies where AFTC and AFI reinvoiced the goods before import (Ashley Furniture Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00283).
The Commerce Department in Nov. 29 remand results at the Court of International Trade dropped its particular market situation adjustment from the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value following a voluntary remand request in an antidumping duty case. The result dropped respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Ltd.'s AD margin from 36.97% to 14.74%. The agency also reduced the margin for non-selected respondent Thai Premium Pipe Co. since it is part of the litigation (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company v. United States, CIT #21-00627).
The Court of International Trade should condition its dismissal of a lawsuit seeking to release goods excluded over forced labor concerns on CBP honoring an agreement that would allow the goods to be exported, importer Virtus Nutrition argued in a Nov. 28 reply brief. Responding to the U.S.'s refusal to commit to honoring the Temporary Storage Agreement, which would ensure that the goods could be exported, Virtus said that it is not trying to extend the agreement, as the government argues, but merely to enforce it (Virtus Nutrition v. U.S., CIT #21-00165).