Antidumping duty petitioner Catfish Farmers of America dropped two cases at the Court of International Trade concerning the surrogate information used in the 2018-19 and 2019-20 reviews of the AD order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The petitioner said that in light of the trade court's recent decision sustaining the Commerce Department's choice of India as a surrogate over Indonesia in a previous review of the same AD order (see 2503100059), it's dismissing its cases on the later two reviews. The petitioner said it's dropping the cases to conserve resources "while continuing to pursue issues relevant to surrogate country and value selection in ongoing and future administrative reviews" (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT #s 21-00380, 22-00125).
A petitioner March 27 supported a U.S. motion to dismiss exporter Pipe & Piling Supplies’ complaint (see 2503250054). It agreed that the pipe exporter hadn’t established the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over it (Pipe & Piling Supplies v. United States, CIT # 24-00211).
Petitioner Catfish Farmers of America said again March 14 that a new Vietnamese frozen fish fillet exporter’s single U.S. sale wasn’t bona fide. The government’s arguments to the contrary (see 2502130061) contradicted its own past practice and were post hoc justifications, it said (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 24-00126).
The Commerce Department has let respondents "game the system" and avoid countervailing duty liability for an otherwise countervailable program "simply by requesting a 'verification' after the fact from a willing foreign government," petitioner Titan Tire Corp. argued in a March 28 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Titan Tire said this system "creates a loophole that threatens to eviscerate the regulation through significant potential gamesmanship" (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00233).
The Commerce Department permissibly said that backboards are veneers for purposes of identifying a benefit provided to countervailing duty respondents regarding the provision of veneers for less than adequate remuneration, the Court of International Trade held on March 27. Judge Timothy Reif said Commerce "explained adequately that the plain language of the Order’s scope defines backboard as a type of veneer."
The U.S. and petitioner Catfish Farmers of America each filed responses to remands in two cases dealing, respectively, with the 2018-19 and 2019-20 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 21-00380; 22-00125).
The Court of International Trade denied March 27 a German thermal paper exporter’s and its affiliate’s motion to dismiss the case brought against it seeking payment of nearly $200 million in outstanding duties. In doing so, CIT Judge Gary Katzmann ruled that the trade court has personal jurisdiction over exporter Koehler Oberkirch and its affiliate, Koehler Paper.
The Court of International Trade on March 27 sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. Judge Timothy Reif upheld Commerce's calculation of a benchmark price for plywood using a weighted average of U.N. Comtrade and International Tropical Timber Organization data, the agency's inclusion of respondents' backboard purchases in the calculation of a benefit from the provision of veneers for less than adequate remuneration, and Commerce's decision to add a 17% value-added tax rate to the benchmark price for various inputs. Reif also upheld the use of adverse facts available against respondent Baroque Timber's use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, though he granted the government's voluntary remand request to reconsider the use of such facts against respondent Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo Wood Industry Co., since the company submitted non-use certifications for all of its U.S. buyers.
The International Trade Commission's "practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses is unlawful," the Court of International Trade held on March 27. Judge Stephen Vaden held that the practice isn't in line with "statute, regulation, precedent, and common sense."
Exporter Bridgestone Americas Tires opposed March 25 the U.S. motion to consolidate two cases regarding the antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from Thailand (see 2503060053) (Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations v. United States, CIT # 24-00263).