The Commerce Department permissibly refused to offer exporter East Sea Seafoods Joint Stock Company separate rate status in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on catfish from Vietnam, petitioner Catfish Farmers of America argued in a Feb. 10 brief supporting Commerce's remand results. The petitioner said that while the Court of International Trade relied on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Yanghzou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. U.S. to remand the issue, legal developments since Bestpak have called into question the relevance of the decision (Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company v. United States, CIT # 22-00092).
The Commerce Department's third factor for assessing a foreign government's de facto control over an exporter, which addresses the selection of management, doesn't require a link to export activities, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Feb. 11. Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen also held that Commerce properly requires separate rate respondents to "carry a burden of persuasion to justify a separate rate," rejecting exporter Pirelli Tyre Co.'s claim that the agency shouldn't have conflated a rebuttable presumption with a requirement to carry a burden of persuasion.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade reassigned a case on importer Meyer Corp.'s claim for first sale valuation on its cookware imports, from Judge Thomas Aquilino to Judge Richard Eaton. In his first decision in the case, Aquilino questioned whether first sale valuation could be used for goods coming from non-market economies. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said CBP has no basis to consider a nation's NME status when deciding whether to grant first sale treatment, sending the case back for consideration of Meyer's shipments (see 2208110060). In his second opinion, Aquilino said the imports at issue don't quality for first sale treatment due to the failure of Meyer's parent company, Meyer International Holdings, to submit financial information (see 2302090053). This decision is now before the Federal Circuit again, which held oral argument in September 2024 (see 2409040034) (Meyer Corp. v. United States, CIT # 13-00154).
The U.S. responded Feb. 7 to an Italian pasta exporter’s argument that application of excessive adverse facts available violates the Eighth Amendment, saying the amendment “has no bearing” on antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings. It explained that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circut has found the use of AFA to be “remedial, not punitive” (Pastificio Gentile S.r.l. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00037).
Importer Shamrock Building Materials filed a stipulation of dismissal in its customs case at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 7. The importer brought the suit to contest CBP's classification of its electrical metallic tubing finished conduit and intermediate metal conduit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7306.30.1000 or 7306.30.5028, dutiable at 25%. The company said the products should fall under duty-free subheading 8547.90.0020. Counsel for Shamrock didn't respond to a request for comment (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, CIT # 21-00571).
The Commerce Department unreasonably found that a sales-based particular market situation doesn't exist in Turkey, thus erring in picking Turkey as a third country comparison market in the antidumping duty investigation on melamine from Qatar, petitioner Cornerstone Chemical Co. argued in a Feb. 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Cornerstone Chemical Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00005).
Responding to an exporter’s comments on remand results (see 2412230074), the government said Feb. 3 that the Commerce Department fully complied with a second remand order by the Court of International Trade (see 2406270043). The trade court had ordered it to further explain its selection of a second mandatory respondent in a separate rate review on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).
A domestic steel trade group brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade Feb. 7 alleging that a mandatory respondent in a tire antidumping duty review “was attempting to pass off an [non-market economy] entity as a market-economy entity” and should have been hit with adverse facts available (United Steel, Paper and Forestry International Union v. United States, CIT # 25-00004).
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit questioned counsel for both antidumping respondent Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi and the government on the Commerce Department's decision to use Turkish lira to value Habas' home-market sales in the 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled steel flat products from Turkey. Judges Kimberly Moore, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham questioned Habas' claim that U.S. dollars should have been used because its home market price negotiations, invoices and records all used U.S. dollars (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1158).