Exporter Chandan Steel Limited will appeal a decision from the Court of International Trade sustaining the 145.25% total adverse facts available rate set against the exporter in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on steel flanges from India (see 2312110043). The Commerce Department said Chandan repeatedly misreported its foreign sales information and the costs of production for those foreign sales. The court upheld the use of AFA to address these misrepresentations, noting that Chandan's responses also had additional deficiencies related to its reporting of gross unit price, quantity discounts, other discounts and duty refunds. The trade court then rejected Chandan Steel's motion for reconsideration of the decision (see 2410030013) (Chandan Steel Limited v. United States, CIT # 21-00540).
Court of International Trade activity
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade granted an unopposed motion for partial final judgment Nov. 26, sustaining the antidumping duty rate calculated for exporter Kenda Rubber (China) Co. in the 2016-17 review of the AD order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. Judge Mark Barnett said the rate is "unchallenged and otherwise appears supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law" (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).
Importer PowerTec Solutions filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 25 seeking refunds of Section 301 duties paid on its power supplies and cables (PowerTecSolutions International v. United States, CIT # 22-00322).
Brandon Chen, who took the April 2022 customs broker license exam, appealed the final results of his exam to the Court of International Trade, contesting 11 questions that CBP denied him credit for. Filing a complaint at the trade court on Nov. 25, Chen noted that he is only two correct answers away from a passing score of 75% (Brandon Chen v. U.S., CIT # 24-00208).
After seeking supplemental evidence from both parties, the Commerce Department on remand continued to find that an Indian frozen shrimp exporter had no reason to believe its home market sales of unbranded shrimp were destined for any location other than India. It kept the exporter’s antidumping duty rate at 7.92%, pending the trade court’s approval (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00202).
CBP properly found that importer Skyview Cabinet USA evaded the antidumping and countervailing duties on wooden cabinets and vanities after correcting a due process violation in the evasion proceeding, the Court of International Trade held on Nov. 27. Judge Stephen Vaden said that the court already found the evasion finding sufficient and that Skyview didn't advance any new evidence or arguments after the due process-related remand.
Importers Struxtur and Evolutions Flooring will appeal a Court of International Trade case on the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. The trade court sustained the Commerce Department's decision to weight average zero percent and adverse facts available antidumping duty rates to set the AD rate for the non-individually examined respondents (see 2409180044). CIT previously remanded Commerce's decision to use a simple average of the zero and AFA rates, instructing the agency to use a weighted average of the rates. The result was a 31.63% AD rate for the separate rate companies. Importers Wego International Floors, Galleher Corp. and Galleher LLC already filed their notice of appeal in the case (see 2411120038) (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 19-00144).
Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reconsider its rejection of the company's attempt to challenge the denial of an antidumping duty cash deposit rate under Section 1581(i), the Court of International Trade's "residual" jurisdiction. Filing a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, J.D. Irving said the appellate court's decision is "grounded on a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and fact" related to its claim (J.D. Irving v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1652).
Supporting its own motion for judgment (see 2407190048) in a case regarding the oft-litigated countervailing duties on South Korea’s low-cost provision of off-peak electricity (see 2406200062), the Korean government said Nov. 26 the opposition’s cited cases were distinct from the current situation (POSCO v. U.S., CIT # 24-00006).