The Court of International Trade should expedite briefing on exporter Oman Fasteners' bid for a preliminary injunction in an antidumping duty case, Oman Fasteners argued in a Dec. 26 brief, saying the "severe, ongoing, and irreparable harm" caused by a "draconian 154.33% duty rate" threatens to put the company out of business. In its unopposed motion, the AD respondent said it already has had to stop all U.S. shipments of its goods subject to the duties and unless it can "quickly resume U.S. sales, and maintain them during the pendency of this case," it will "face insolvency through default on its existing financial obligations" or suffer irreparable harm (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT #22-00348).
The Commerce Department violated the law when it used the total adverse facts available rate for two non-cooperative respondents as the all-others rate in an antidumping duty review, plaintiff-appellants led by Cheng CH International argued in a Dec. 23 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Appealing a Court of International Trade ruling upholding the rate, the appellant said the "punitive, total AFA rate" Commerce assigned the non-individually examined respondents was not based on their actual dumping margin (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2128).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The International Trade Commission violated the law by failing to either conduct a changed circumstances review or reconsider its original antidumping neglibility decision in a sunset review, Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) argued in a group of three related complaints at the Court of International Trade. After another exporter, Colakoglu Dis Ticaret, was revoked from the AD order following court proceedings, the ITC illegally denied any opportunity for Colakoglu's imports to be excluded from the antidumping duty injury proceeding, Erdemir said (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00349, #22-00350, #22-00351).
The Commerce Department must reconsider its use of adverse facts available rate for countervailing duty respondent Yama Ribbons and Bows' alleged receipt of benefits from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Dec. 23 opinion. Judge Timothy Stanceu said Commerce should take another look at the 10.54% rate, saying the goal of AFA is not to use a "punitive" rate but one that encourages parties to comply with agency requests to the best of their ability. However, the judge found the use of AFA over the EBCP itself was reasonable, making Stanceu the court's third judge to buck a long line of prior CIT rulings against the use of AFA for the EBCP.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should let the U.S. add a key "Deficiencies Memorandum" to the record of an antidumping duty case since the document was "intertwined" with the AD proceeding's final results, petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition argued in a Dec. 21 reply brief. Arguing the memorandum is part of the record "as a matter of law" since it was "considered by agency decision-makers," the petitioner opposed the initiative from the Grupo Simec-led plaintiffs to oppose the addition of the memo to the record (Grupo Acerero v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00202).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential Dec. 22 opinion upheld parts of and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. In a letter, Judge Richard Easton said he wishes to issue a public version of the opinion in the "near future," giving parties until Jan. 3 to review any confidential information in the opinion. The case, which has over 40 plaintiffs, concerns Commerce's decision to hit separate rate respondents with the China-wide dumping rate and to calculate a simple averaged rate instead of a weighted average margin for the separate rate respondents (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00144).
Plaintiffs Amsted Rail Co., ASF-K de Mexico, Strato and TTX will appeal a Court of International Trade decision dismissing their attorney misconduct suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, according to a Dec. 22 notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Questions arose over whether the plaintiffs would actually appeal the case after the trade court rejected a proposed injunction that would bar ARC's former counsel and his firm from accessing confidential information in the underlying International Trade Commission proceeding (see 2212200033) (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00307).
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 22 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017-2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hardwood plywood from China. In all, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves looked at the six issues and sided with Commerce: (1) Commerce's calculation of normal value for respondent Linyi Chengen using its normal methodology and not its alternative input methodology; (2) Commerce's surrogate value data and calculation for Linyi Chengen's log inputs; (3) the agency's surrogate value calculation for labor; (4) whether a reply brief from the plaintiffs raises new arguments and has new information; (5) the surrogate value for Linyi Chengen's formaldehyde input; and (6) Commerce's selection of financial statements and calculation of surrogate financial ratios.