The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia, in a Nov. 30 opinion made public Dec. 8. Judge Richard Eaton remanded Commerce's use of total adverse facts available after finding that the agency failed to show that mandatory respondent BlueScope's responses created a gap in the record and didn't provide the company with a notice of deficient responses. The court ordered that Commerce shall use BlueScope's quantity and value submissions unless it gives a "reasoned explanation" as to why this data is unusable for key considerations in the review.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade granted a preliminary injunction against the liquidation of two plaintiffs' pig farrowing crate imports after they argued that their case raises serious legal questions over an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case. In a Dec. 6 brief, the plaintiffs, Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co., said that since they have made a showing of irreparable harm, the burden in showing its success on the merits is lowered and that the mere questions raised by the case clear this hurdle. The Department of Justice also signed off on the injunction motion (Ikadan System USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00592).
A confidential opening brief from appellant ABB Enterprise Software is not in compliance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's rules, the appellate court said in a Dec. 6 notice of non-compliance. The Federal Circuit said that the document "does not contain the required proof of service or the proof of service indicates improper service of material that cannot be served through the court’s electronic filing system." ABB's case appeals a Court of International Trade ruling that sided against the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty review. The opening brief in question argued that the CIT wrongly held that Commerce impermissibly speculated when finding that an antidumping duty respondent's reporting error supported disregarding the respondent's entire U.S. and home market databases (see 2111230087) (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems, fka Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2312).
The Department of Justice filed a motion, with the consent of the plaintiff -- palm oil importer Virtus Nutrition -- for an extension of time to reply to an amicus brief since the litigants are nearing a resolution of the case, DOJ said in the Dec. 3 filing. The case concerns a shipment of palm oil entered by Virtus that was excluded from entry by CBP over suspicions that the goods were made with forced labor. Virtus expects a sale and re-exportation of the palm oil following a U.S. Coast Guard inspection of the two-way hydrant system located at the port where the merchandise is being stored, the brief said. Once this inspection is completed, the goods will be on their way (Virtus Nutrition, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00165).
Pirelli Tyre Co. properly showed that it was not under Chinese government control for the first 10 months of an antidumping review period and thus subject to a separate rate analysis, the Commerce Department said in its Dec. 3 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. Since a Chinese company bought Pirelli in the 10th month of the review, though, the company is considered under Chinese government control from that point forward. The case had been remanded so that Commerce could reconsider the first 10 months of the review, before the sale (Qingdao Sentury Tire Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 18-00079).
The Court of International Trade upheld a Commerce Department scope ruling finding solar panel roof mountings from China Custom Manufacturing and Greentec within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. In his Dec. 6 opinion, Judge Stephen Vaden sided with Commerce in finding that the mounts do not qualify for the finished merchandise exception and instead constitute subassemblies which are subject to the orders. Vaden did so even over plaintiffs' arguments that a previous interpretation of the finished merchandise exclusion would have excluded the mounts from the orders.
U.S. Steel was again denied the right to intervene in a Section 232 exclusion denial challenge at the Court of International Trade, with the court holding that the Pennsylvania steel company did not have a legally protectable interest in the case. According to the Dec. 3 opinion, U.S. Steel cannot intervene in the case since it won't be directly affected by the case's outcome. Judge Claire Kelly said that any harm that U.S. Steel would experience as a result of the court granting a Section 232 exclusion would be indirect since the company has no right to the sale of the covered products.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 7 granted partial victory to an importer challenging the assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties on its entries of solar cells, even though it says the entries preceded the date Commerce changed the scope of the relevant AD/CVD orders to include the products. Aireko Construction said the entries should be reliquidated at zero percent AD/CVD rates. However, the importer had challenged the assessments based on a denied protest, rather than file its case under the proper jurisdiction to challenge Commerce's instructions to CBP. Without a valid challenge to those instructions, CIT ruled that it could only instruct CBP to reliquidate the entries according to Commerce's instructions, free of CV duties but at an AD duty rate of 42.33%.
Section 1581(i) Jurisdiction Stands in Liquidation Instruction Challenge, Solar Cell Importer Argues
The Department of Justice's motion to dismiss a challenge to the Commerce Department's liquidation instructions to CBP over MS Solar's solar panels is "nothing more than an effort to avoid judicial scrutiny of its arbitrary and unreasonable actions," MS Solar said in a Nov. 23 brief to the Court of International Trade. The solar panel importer urged the court to accept jurisdiction under the court's Section 1581(i) "residual" jurisdiction provision (MS Solar Investments, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00303).