The Commerce Department failed to show that it held a fair comparison between the constructed export price for three affiliated steel pipe producers and their home market price, the Court of International Trade ruled in a July 15 opinion. Judge Timothy Stanceu ruled that Commerce did not discuss how a fair comparison was reached in light of evidence showing two levels of trade in the home market, nor did the agency analyze detracting evidence placed on the record by the plaintiffs, led by Universal Tube and Plastic Industries.
Correction: David Craven represents Global Aluminum, an importer that, alongside Kingtom Aluminio, CBP also found to have evaded antidumping and countervailing duties in an Enforce and Protect Act case prior to reversing its decision during a Court of International Trade case (see 2207140021).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC) should not be allowed to intervene in a case contesting CBP's finding that Global Aluminum Distributor and Hialeah Aluminum Supply evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio argued. Filing an opposition brief at the Court of International Trade on July 13, with the support of Global Aluminum, Kingtom argued that AEFTC's motion is untimely, it failed to show a conditional right to intervene and the committee cannot intervene based on a shared claim or defense (Global Aluminum Distributor v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00198).
Adverse price affects from imports do not have to be the main driver of injury for the International Trade Commission to reach an affirmative injury finding in an antidumping duty investigation, said Novus International, an intervenor supporting the ITC's challenged affirmative injury determination in the AD duty investigations on methionine from Spain and Japan, in a brief filed July 14 (Adisseo Espana and Adisseo USA v. U.S., CIT #21-00562).
Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case, led by Ellwood Cit y Forge Company, filed for a reconsideration of a Court of International Trade opinion that found that they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies when challenging the Commerce Department's decision to issue a questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. The reconsideration bid argued that Commerce's remand results in a separate antidumping case revealed how futile raising the point administratively would have been, and that in light of these new facts, the court should reconsider its ruling (Ellwood City Forge Company v. United States, CIT #21-00073).
The Commerce Department properly rejected countervailing duty respondent Tau-Ken Temir's questionnaire responses for being untimely, as they were filed an hour and 41 minutes beyond the deadline, the Court of International Trade ruled in a July 14 opinion. Judge Leo Gordon said it's "unclear" why the plaintiffs. led by TKT, failed to file an extension request earlier in the process -- the request was filed an hour and 10 minutes before the deadline -- and the record shows the respondent didn't put forth a maximum effort to give Commerce the requested information by the deadline. Gordon also held that TKT put no information on the record to back its claim the petitioners' conflict-of-interest claim interfered with its ability to respond to the investigation's questionnaire.
CBP’s reversal in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case at the Court of International Trade case puts the agency’s entire Enforce and Protect Act program “in jeopardy,” the domestic industry group Aluminum Extruders Council said in a blog post July 13.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. on July 14 appeared in a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over whether the Commerce Department has the statutory authority to conduct expedited countervailing duty reviews. The court in June invited the U.S. to file an amicus brief after it failed to appear to that point (see 2206100045). In response, Elizabeth Speck at DOJ asked the court for another 92 days to file the amicus brief, filing an unopposed motion for extension of time. In the brief, Speck said that the additional 92 days is necessary since the U.S. has decided not to participate in the appeal.