Australian exporter BlueScope Steel and its U.S. affiliate challenged the Commerce Department's decision to not deduct discounts and rebates from the company's normal value when setting its antidumping duty rate in an administrative review, in a Sept. 28 complaint at the Court of International Trade. BlueScope said that this decision cut against the agency's regulations and was "premised on a wholly inaccurate understanding of the data that BlueScope submitted" (BlueScope Steel Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00509).
Court of International Trade activity
The Commerce Department ditched its reliance on adverse facts available for respondent Hyundai Steel in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade in a challenge to an antidumping review on cold-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. After giving Hyundai an opportunity to explain a discrepancy between two product codes, the agency accepted the explanation and thus dropped its adverse facts available finding. Commerce also rescinded its decision to apply the all-others rate to one of Hyundai's affiliated freight companies, dubbed "Company A" (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00099).
Knit gloves with a plastic coating on the palm and on the front and sides of the fingers are classifiable as textile gloves of heading 6116, not articles of plastic of heading 3926, the Department of Justice said in a brief filed Sept. 17 with the Court of International Trade. The gloves are entirely described by the terms of heading 6116, and as such can’t be classified in the residual subheading for plastics, DOJ said (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 16-00150).
The Commerce Department decided to value a key solar cell input using Bulgarian imports rather than Thai imports after the Court of International Trade said the agency's use of the Thai surrogate data was improper, it told the court in Sept. 27 remand results (Solarworld Americas, Inc. et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #16-00134).
Requiring a CBP protest to obtain a refund under exclusions from Section 301 tariffs usurps the authority of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and unlawfully hands it over to CBP, importers ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings argued at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (ARP Materials, Inc., et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade ruled once again Sept. 27 that the Commerce Department cannot make a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production for the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves remanded the case to Commerce, finding that nothing in the statute permits such an adjustment.
The Commerce Department's calculation of the separate rate in an antidumping duty review by averaging the separate rates from the previous four administrative reviews was backed by substantial evidence, the Court of International Trade said in a Sept. 27 order. After previously finding that Commerce's extension of the adverse facts available rate to the non-individually examined respondents was unlawful, the court then upheld the agency's new separate rate calculation methodology.
The Commerce Department's decision to pick Mexico over Malaysia as a surrogate country in an antidumping duty investigation on Chinese quartz surface products was properly supported, the Court of International Trade said in a Sept. 24 opinion. Judge Leo Gordon upheld the determination, finding that the plaintiff, mandatory respondent Foshan Yixin Stone Company Limited, needed to prove that Malaysia was "the one and only reasonable surrogate country selection" -- something it failed to do.
The International Trade Commission had no authority to deny lawyers representing LG Electronics access to confidential business information during a safeguard proceeding on solar cells from China, the lawyers argued in a Sept. 24 brief at the Court of International Trade. The congressional mandate for granting administrative protective orders (APOs) merely tells the ITC what it "shall" do, so commission had no grounds to deny a timely filed APO application, the Curtis Mallet-Prevost lawyers said (LG Electronics USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT 21-00520).