The Court of International Trade on Sept. 15 sustained the Commerce Department's decision on remand to replace existing Brazilian surrogate value information for antidumping duty respondent Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry's plywood input with Malaysian import data. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves upheld the move, which led to a slight drop in Senmao's AD rate to 14.35% from 16.17%, after no challenges to the remand results were received.
Saying that importer Lanxess’ chemicals were, on import, “intermediate components” rather than “supported catalysts,” the U.S. responded Sept. 12 to the importer’s motion for judgment with a cross motion (Lanxess Corporation v. United States, CIT # 23-00073).
The Commerce Department properly decided not to collapse an Italian antidumping duty respondent with its Romanian input supplier on the grounds that the input supplier isn't a "producer" of subject merchandise as defined by the AD statute, the Court of International Trade held on Sept. 15. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce's justification isn't impermissibly post hoc, despite the fact that it wasn't established during the challenged AD review, since the issue is "one of statutory construction."
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Exporters Agro Sevilla Aceitunas S. Coop. and Angel Camacho Alimentacion on Sept. 12 dropped their case at the Court of International Trade against the Commerce Department's 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ripe olives from Spain. Counsel for the companies didn't respond to a request for comment (Agro Sevilla Aceitunas S. Coop. v. United States, CIT # 25-00153).
Tire exporter Bridgestone, seeking judgment in its case challenging use of total adverse facts available in a Thai tires antidumping duty investigation, said Sept. 5 that the Commerce Department “repeatedly denied” the existence of provably reliable documents Bridgestone provided it at verification and then made “questionable representations” to the Court of International Trade (see 2503200048) (Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations v. United States, CIT # 24-00263).
Antidumping duty respondent Jiangxi Brother Pharmaceutical on Sept. 11 filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on vanillin from China. The respondent challenged Commerce's "calculation of the surrogate value for the by-product Hydroquinone," selection of the financial statements used as the basis for the financial ratios used in the surrogate value calculation, and the use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping (Jiangxi Brother Pharmaceutical Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00187).
The Court of International Trade sustained CBP's finding that importer Scioto Valley Woodworking evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China, in a confidential decision issued Sept. 12. Judge Lisa Wang said the evasion finding, which CBP flipped on remand, is supported by "substantial evidence and complies with the court's instructions" (American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance v. United States, CIT # 23-00140).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 11 sustained the Commerce Department's 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, after the agency added a second respondent on remand and reconsidered certain benchmark calculations. Judge Timothy Reif said that no party objected to Commerce's remand results (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03885).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 15 upheld the Commerce Department's decision not to collapse antidumping duty respondent Dalmine with its affiliated input supplier Silcotub in the 2021-22 administrative review of the AD order on mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Italy. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce properly followed the relevant statute in finding that Silcotub, a Romania-based company, can't be collapsed with Dalmine, since Silcotub isn't a producer of subject merchandise. The judge said that Commerce didn't impermissibly rely on this rationale post hoc, since it's an issue of "statutory construction," which is exempted from the bar against post hoc rationalizations.