Plaintiff-appellants in a case challenging the termination of an antidumping duty suspension agreement filed a motion for a panel or full court rehearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after the court found that the appellants made no plausible challenge to the termination. Appellants Bioparques de Occidente, Agricola La Primavera and Kaliroy said the court's decision was made "despite the absence of any briefing or arguments on the matter in this appeal," raising serious fairness and due process concerns (Bioparques de Occidente v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #20-2265).
Industrial diamonds from China further processed into superabbrasives in Romania should not be subject to additional Section 301 tariffs as products of China, Lieber & Solow, which does business as Lands Superabrasives, said in a complaint filed May 27 at the Court of International Trade. The companies argue that the industrial diamond crystals from China became objects of a different character, identity and use after processing in Romania and should be Romanian products for tariff purposes. Lands asked the court to find Romania as the correct country of origin and order CBP to reliquidate the merchandise with refunds of excess duties and interest (Lieber & Solow Ltd. d/b/a Lands Superabrasives, Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00623).
The government is opposing the consolidation or test case designation of four cases involving hardwood plywood imported by Richmond International Forest Products (RIFP) at the Court of International Trade. In a motion filed May 27, the government said RIFP has already proved its products are not of Chinese origin in the case RIFP designated as a test case, but that the court would still need to consider the three other cases on an entry-specific basis (Richmond International Forest Products Inc. v. United States, CIT # 21-00063, 21-00178, 21-00318, 21-00319).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential May 31 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia. In a letter on the opinion, Judge Richard Eaton gave the litigants until June 7 to review the bracketed confidential information. The case, brought by U.S. Steel Corp., challenges Commerce's alleged failure to address the company's arguments over whether a reimbursement of the antidumping duties was occurring between the Australian producer and its affiliated U.S. importer (United States Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-03815).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should reverse the Court of International Trade's judgment sustaining the International Trade Commission's finding that imports of fabricated structural steel from Canada, Chile and Mexico did not harm the domestic industry, petitioner Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) said in a May 27 reply brief. The appellees in the case are "not even in agreement amongst themselves" over what the ITC decided in the case or why, and they have "failed to adequately defend" the "specific legal issues" raised by AISC, the brief said (Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1176).
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 Commerce Department again defended the use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis to detect "masked" dumping in remand results filed on May 26 at the Court of International Trade. Responding to the court's order instructing the agency to address questions on the use of the test raised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Commerce said that the appellate court's chief concern -- that the test as used by Commerce did not satisfy certain statistical criteria -- is not applicable in the present case (Marmen Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00169).
The Commerce Department failed to properly consider the "extremely disproportionate and prejudicial result" that stemmed from its decision to reject an untimely filing in an antidumping sunset review that led to the revocation of the order, three U.S. chemical companies argued in a May 31 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Commerce's "exceedingly narrow view" of what qualifies as an "extraordinary circumstance" isn't supported by the statute, evidence or the agency's own prior practice, given that Commerce said the U.S. companies' counsel's medical issues didn't qualify as such a circumstance, the brief said (Trinity Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1329).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department wrongly granted a price adjustment used in two antidumping duty respondents' margins for differences in levels of trade (LOT) between the U.S. constructed export price (CEP) sales and sales made in the home market of South Korea, AD petitioner Wheatland Tube argued in a May 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Wheatland Tube v. United States, CIT #22-00160).