Court of International Trade activity

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 28 sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on wind towers from Spain, in which the agency gave the collapsed entity of Siemens Gamesa and Windar a 28.55% AD rate. Judge Timothy Stanceu said Commerce reasonably found holding company Siemens Gamesa to be a "producer or exporter" and appropriately decided to collapse Siemens Gamesa, Windar and five of Windar's subsidiaries. The judge also upheld the agency's calculation of the collapsed entity's constructed export price.

The following new lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

Exporter Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Co. took to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 24 to challenge the Commerce Department's surrogate value for land rental prices in Vietnam in the countervailing duty investigation on frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam (Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00030).

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's decision on remand to drop the use of total adverse facts available against exporter Apiario Diamante Comercial Exportadora, with Apiario Diamante Producao e Comercial de Mel known as Supermel, in the antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Brazil. The result saw Supermel's AD rate drop from 83.72% to 10.52%.

Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif said in a Jan. 27 opinion that the Commerce Department had abused its discretion by denying steel exporter Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co.’s submission after it was late, but still filed before the opening of the following business day.

Exporter Shanghai Tainai Bearings Co. and importer C&U Americas will appeal a Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's use of neutral facts available against Tainai in the 33rd review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. The court said Tainai's cooperation in the reviews raised questions about how "aggressively" it sought to gain the cooperation of its unaffiliated suppliers, though these questions didn't translate into the use of adverse facts available (see 2412180036). The court also upheld Commerce's practice of excluding additional revenue Tainai collected in connection with its payment of Section 301 duties from the company's U.S. price (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00038).

Petitioners led by Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee opposed Jan. 23 the Commerce Department’s continued finding on remand that an Indian frozen shrimp exporter had no reason to think its unbranded home market sales were destined for sale in a third country. Ad Hoc again argued that, based on record evidence, the exporter “knew or should have known” where its products would end up (see 2404160042) (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00202).

Importer Northern Tool & Equipment Co. dropped its customs suit at the Court of International Trade, which contested the classification of its agricultural sprayers. CBP liquidated the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8424.49.0000 and 8424.41.1000, dutiable at 2.4% and free of duty, respectively, and secondary subheading 9903.88.03, which carries a 25% Section 301 duty. The importer claimed that the goods should fall under subheading 9817.00.5000, free of duty. Counsel for Northern Tool didn't immediately respond to request for comment (Northern Tool & Equipment v. United States, CIT # 22-00197).

The Court of International Trade ordered Jan. 27 the remand of a circumvention inquiry in which an exporter, Hoa Phat Steel Pipe, failed to meet a deadline but still submitted all requested information before the opening of the first business day following that deadline. CIT Judge Timothy Reif found the Commerce Department’s rejection of that information, and subsequent assignment of adverse facts available to the exporter, was an abuse of discretion, specifically noting that Commerce itself had twice extended the deadline for its own determination (Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00248).

The Commerce Department "effectuated Congress' intent" when it found that U.S. seafood seller Luscious Seafood is not a bona fide wholesaler of the domestic like product, petitioner Catfish Farmers of America said in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner said that while Congress didn't define the term "wholesaler" in the antidumping laws, the "overall text, structure, and purpose of the law do not reflect any intention to allow parties with merely tangential or fugitive wholesaling activity to force Commerce into action -- particularly for potentially manipulative ends" (Luscious Seafood v. United States, CIT # 24-00069).