The Court of International Trade ordered Jan. 27 the remand of a circumvention inquiry in which an exporter, Hoa Phat Steel Pipe, failed to meet a deadline but still submitted all requested information before the opening of the first business day following that deadline. CIT Judge Timothy Reif found the Commerce Department’s rejection of that information, and subsequent assignment of adverse facts available to the exporter, was an abuse of discretion, specifically noting that Commerce itself had twice extended the deadline for its own determination (Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00248).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 25 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to cut the antidumping duty rate for exporter Apiario Diamante Comercial Exportadora, known as Supermel, from 83.72% to 10.52% in the AD investigation on raw honey from Brazil. Judge Timothy Stanceu rejected a host of claims against the move from the petitioners, finding that Commerce adequately surveyed the record and said total adverse facts available wasn't warranted due to the reliability of Supermel's data. The petitioners failed to "perfect" their claims alleging deficiencies in the respondent's submissions, since "they make no attempt to show" how the deficiencies "affected the Department's margin calculation," the court said.
Commerce 'Effectuated Congress' Intent' by Denying Seafood Seller Wholesaler Status, Petitioner Says
The Commerce Department "effectuated Congress' intent" when it found that U.S. seafood seller Luscious Seafood is not a bona fide wholesaler of the domestic like product, petitioner Catfish Farmers of America said in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner said that while Congress didn't define the term "wholesaler" in the antidumping laws, the "overall text, structure, and purpose of the law do not reflect any intention to allow parties with merely tangential or fugitive wholesaling activity to force Commerce into action -- particularly for potentially manipulative ends" (Luscious Seafood v. United States, CIT # 24-00069).
An issue with the Court of International Trade's CM/ECF system has been resolved, the court said in a text-only notice to various litigants. The issue caused certain Notices of Electronic Filing, including those with deadlines, to not be received by their intended recipients (see 2501220091). The court said that to ensure all affected parties are aware of docket activity during the time that the CM/ECF system was impaired, the court will send regenerated Notices of Electronic Filing for the affected filings "in the near future." Those with questions were instructed to reach out to the courts CM/ECF Help Desk at 1-866-450-1859 or cmecf_helpdesk@cit.uscourts.gov.
No new lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
The U.S. and importer Cozy Comfort Co. each filed proposed findings of fact and law earlier this month after a weeklong trial before the Court of International Trade on whether to classify Cozy Comfort's product, The Comfy, as a blanket or a pullover (Cozy Comfort Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00173).
The Commerce Department decided not to countervail benefits received by countervailing duty respondent Kaptan Demir from Turkey's Banking and Insurance and Transaction Tax exemptions on remand at the Court of International Trade. The agency said that while there was not enough information to find that the exemptions were de facto specific, it faulted its lack of time on remand to gather sufficient information (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 23-00131).
The Court of International Trade's CM/ECF is currently experiencing some technical issues that are causing certain Notices of Electronic Filing, including those with deadlines, to not be received by their intended recipients, a representative of the court said in an email on Jan. 22. The court didn't provide an indication as to when the issue would be resolved.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
In a complaint brought Jan. 21 in the Court of International Trade, exporter East Asia Aluminum Company alleged that a Commerce Department investigation failed to properly account for its scrap byproduct, which East Asia Aluminum continuously reintroduces back into production, which caused a chain of circumstances resulting in a far-too-late affirmative critical circumstances determination (East Asia Aluminum Company v. United States, CIT # 24-00255).