The Court of International Trade on Feb. 26 again sent back the Commerce Department's decision that Indonesian data is not economically comparable to Vietnam as part of its surrogate country selection process, along with the agency's consideration of evidence pertaining to exporter NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Company's production information.
Indian exporter Kumar Industries withdrew its appeal of an antidumping duty case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 23. The company said that it "has elected not to further pursue its appeal," noting that the U.S. consented to the withdrawal (Kumar Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1293).
The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over an importer’s case under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) because it has previously ruled that an administrative protest against an entry’s liquidation cannot be brought before the liquidation has occurred, that importer said in a brief contesting the U.S. motion to dismiss (Fraserview Remanufacturing Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00063).
The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a Feb. 26 confidential order in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Argentina. In a letter to the parties, Judge Claire Kelly said it's her intention to issue a public version of the opinion on or shortly after March 5, giving the parties until March 4 to review the confidential information. In the remand results, Commerce continued to use respondent Nexco's acquisition costs as a proxy for the cost of production of beekeeper supplies (see 2310130049). The agency also struck by its decision to compare Nexco's U.S. sale prices with normal values based on Nexco's third-country sale prices to Germany on a monthly basis instead of a quarterly basis (Nexco v. U.S., CIT # 22-00203).
A government claim that an importer failed to exercise “reasonable care” is not enough for an actual charge of negligence under the customs penalty statute, that importer said Feb. 23 before the Court of International Trade (U.S. v. Katana Racing d/b/a Wheel & Tire Distributors, CIT # 19-00125).
Three U.S. steel companies, Cleveland-Cliffs, Steel Dynamics and SSAB Enterprises, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that Turkish exporter Habas failed to show that the Commerce Department's finding that Habas' Turkish lira price, and not the U.S. dollar price, controlled the amount owed by the exporter's customers at the time of payment was unsupported. Filing a reply brief on Feb. 26, the steel companies said Habas' arguments, which were "long on verbiage and obfuscation but short on specificity and clarity," only presumed the agency's finding to be wrong and did not actually show that it was (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1158).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
After a second remand, the Commerce Department said Feb. 22 that despite conducting a previously impossible on-site verification of the sole mandatory respondent for an AD investigation on forged steel fittings from India, its negative finding remained unchanged (Bonney Forge Corporation v. U.S., CIT #20-03837).
Parties on the defendants’ side in two cases Feb. 21 opposed a motion of joinder in separate briefs, saying that, although both were litigating claims against an affirmative International Trade Commission injury determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on Mexican and Chinese rail couplers, their cases raise “unique” legal issues with little crossover (Amsted Rail Ind. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00268; Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00157).
The Commerce Department reversed its use of Descartes ocean freight data in various subsidy calculations on remand in a case on the 2021 countervailing duty review of crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China. Instead of using an average of Descartes and Xeneta data, the agency said it decided to solely use the Xeneta in response to concerns raised by the Court of International Trade (Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00219).