The Court of International Trade partially remanded the International Trade Commission's injury investigation on freight rail couplers from China in a confidential decision issued Oct. 8. Judge Gary Katzmann held oral argument in the case in July, questioning attorneys as to whether it was lawful for the ITC to open an injury investigation two months after reaching a negative injury finding for the same imports (see 2507070056) (Wabtec Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00157).
German aluminum manufacturer Speira argued in an Oct. 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade that CBP failed to apply the antidumping duty rate the Commerce Department calculated for Hydro Aluminum Rolled Products to its entries, since Commerce found that Speira is the successor-in-interest to Hydro. As a result, CBP refused to refund the excess duties paid by Speira, the company said (Speira v. United States, CIT # 25-00218).
The Commerce Department improperly found that the plain language of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on chassis and subassemblies thereof from China cover Vietnamese chassis with Chinese-origin components, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 8. Judge Claire Kelly said the orders "contain multiple ambiguities," including "when components are included within the scope of the Orders," when third-country operations exclude the individual components from the orders, and the meaning of "subassemblies ... whether ... assembled or unassembled."
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 9 sustained the Commerce Department's 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on utility-scale wind towers from Malaysia. Judge Gary Katzmann held that Commerce permissibly decided not to apply an adjustment to the cost of production to "account for production volume decreases before a shutdown" and selected Malaysian companies Mycron Steel and Alpine Pipe Manufacturing as the surrogate companies for calculating respondent CS Wind's constructed value profit. Regarding the cost of production adjustment, Katzmann noted that the agency properly captured the shutdown-related costs in a separate variable submitted by CS Wind.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 8 held that the Commerce Department's "cross-ownership regulation" turns on whether the purpose of the subsidy provided to a cross-owned input provider "is to benefit the production of both the input and downstream products." In clarifying how the regulation is to be applied, Judges Jimmie Reyna, William Bryson and Kara Stoll held that the Court of International Trade was right to reject Commerce's application of this regulation to countervailing duty respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals in the countervailing duty investigation on polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from India.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 9 sustained the Commerce Department's decision, made on remand, to exclude seven types of magnesia carbon bricks imported by Fedmet Resources from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China. While the petitioner, the Magnesia Carbon Bricks Fair Trade Committee, argued that Judge Miller Baker previously misinterpreted a 2014 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in finding that the addition of any alumina to the bricks excludes them from the orders, Baker was unconvinced. The judge said the petitioner in the underlying AD/CVD investigations explicitly disclaimed the inclusion of bricks with any alumina within the scope of the orders. Baker noted that while this could allow importers to skirt duty liability by merely adding tiny amounts of alumina, affected U.S. producers could turn to anti-circumvention proceedings.
The Court of International Trade announced that Pacer.gov will undergo maintenance Oct. 12 6:55 a.m. to 7 p.m. EDT. During this time, users may experience difficulties when "logging onto CM/ECF and when making payments through Pay.gov."
Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Stanceu joined many of his colleagues in granting the government's motions to stay its case before him, pending the federal government shutdown. Like other CIT judges, Stanceu ordered the government to file a status report within 10 days of the appropriations lapse ending to establish new filing deadlines (see 2510020051).
During oral argument held Sept. 3 at the Court of International Trade, Judge Mark Barnett expressed skepticism about an argument that negative antidumping duty and countervailing duty determinations regarding a product preclude the Commerce Department from starting circumvention inquiries into the same product (SeAH Steel Vina Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00256, -00257, -00258).
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 8 remanded a Commerce Department scope ruling that importer Pitts Enterprises' chassis from Vietnam containing Chinese-origin axle and landing gear components fall under the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on chassis and subassemblies thereof from China. Judge Claire Kelly held that Commerce must adopt the "plain meaning of the word 'entered'" in the AD/CVD orders, "namely 'entered into the United States.'" Kelly also rejected the agency's claim that the plain meaning of the orders covers Chinese-origin parts that enter the U.S. as part of a chassis. She found that the orders are ambiguous as to "when components are included within the scope of the Orders." They're also unclear on when third country operations remove these parts from the orders, as well as on the meaning of "subassemblies ... whether ... assembled or unassembled." Lastly, the judge told Commerce to reconsider its decision to impose AD/CVD on the "entire value of the imported chassis" rather than just on the Chinese-origin parts.