The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 ruled that the Commerce Department improperly excluded certain solar cell sales from consolidated antidumping duty respondent Inventec Solar Energy Corp.'s (ISEC's) dumping margin based on its finding that ISEC did not have any actual or constructive knowledge that its goods would ultimately end up in the United States. Judge Leo Gordon said that given "the totality of the record, the court cannot sustain as reasonable" the finding that ISEC did not have actual knowledge of the solar cells' destination.
CBP improperly found that importer Diamond Tools Technology made a "material and false" statement in the agency's Enforce and Protect Act evasion finding, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Dec. 16 opinion. Sending the case back to CBP again, Judge Timothy Reif ruled that the agency's use of the EAPA statute is inconsistent with the law's language and structure, and even if its use was legal, its interpretation of the statute is not entitled to deference. Diamond Tools properly classified its merchandise as not covered merchandise given the guidance it had at the time, the judge said.
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 20 opinion denied an injunction bid pending appeal from certain plaintiffs in a conflict-of interest suit. After recently rejecting the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Gary Katzmann this time rejected the injunction motion pending appeal since the appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit "has not yet been noticed," but even if it had, the injunction "is unwarranted." Katzmann said the plaintiffs fail to both show a "strong showing of success on the merits" and prove that they will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction. The case was brought by Amsted Rail Co. to contest its former counsel's alleged ethical violations via its use of the company's confidential information in an antidumping and countervailing duty injury proceeding.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department stuck by its decision to rely on antidumping duty respondent Dillinger's books and records to find the cost of production (COP) for non-prime products, the agency said in Dec. 15 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. Commerce said that relying on Dillinger's books and records, or the recorded total costs assigned to the prime and non-prime goods, was the "only reasonable approach" (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT #17-00158).
The Court of International Trade in a pair of Dec. 16 opinions upheld the Commerce Department's decisions to exclude importers Worldwide Door Components' and Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. After previously remanding the decision for not being submitted in a form that was judicially reviewable, Judge Timothy Stanceu said that this time around the agency has made a scope decision "in a form the court is able to sustain."
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 ruled that the Commerce Department improperly excluded certain solar cell sales from antidumping respondent Inventec Solar Energy Corp.'s (ISEC's) dumping margin based on its finding that ISEC did not have any actual or constructive knowledge that its goods would ultimately end up in the United States. Judge Leo Gordon said that given "the totality of the record, the court cannot sustain as reasonable" the finding that ISEC did not have actual knowledge of the solar cells' destination.
The Commerce Department properly used adverse facts available for countervailing duty respondents' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, the Court of International Trade held in a Dec. 8 opinion made public Dec. 16. Judge Timothy Reif penned the trade court's second opinion upholding the use of AFA for the EBCP after a string of court decisions rejected the use of AFA for the program. The judge held that certain information that Commerce was not given by the Chinese government was critical to verifying non-use of the EBCP, given that the respondents' customers failed to submit non-use certifications.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP's EAPA determination that Blue Pipe Steel Center evaded an antidumping duty order was incorrect because the Commerce Department has since ruled the imported line pipe outside the scope of the order, Blue Pipe said in a Dec. 14 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 21-00081).