The Commerce Department didn't fail to notify exporter Hyundai Steel Co. about deficiencies in its quantitative analysis in an antidumping review and also properly denied constructed export price adjustments to both Hyundai and exporter Husteel Co., the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 15.
The Commerce Department reasonably used exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi's invoice date as the date of sale in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete rebar from Turkey, the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 15. Judge Jane Restani also upheld Commerce's differences-in-merchandise adjustment, finding that the adjustment wasn't distoritive in the way that it controlled for inflation.
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 15 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to deny exporters Hyundai Steel Co. and Husteel Co.'s constructed export price offsets in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. Judge Timothy Reif said that Commerce reasonably said a "per-unit analysis" was needed to properly assess whether the home market and CEP sales were made at a more advanced stage of distribution and that neither respondent submitted such an analysis. The judge also said Hyundai received adequate notice of any insufficiencies in its submissions.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Indian aluminum sheet exporter Hindalco Industries brought a complaint Jan. 10 to the Court of International Trade, saying the Commerce Department wrongly found to be specific programs by which Hindalco had been provided bauxite mining rights and coal and bauxite by the government of India for less-than-adequate remuneration (Hindalco Industries v. United States, CIT # 24-00234).
The Commerce Department unlawfully chose to break with its past practice of not considering subsidies provided by the Russian government prior to April 1, 2002, in a countervailing duty review on phosphate fertilizers, respondent JSC Apatit argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Jan. 9, Apatit argued that Commerce failed to apply this cut-off date when analyzing whether mining rights were provided to the company for less than adequate remuneration in the 2022 review of the CVD order (Joint Stock Company Apatit v. United States, CIT # 24-00226).
Importer Florida Power & Light Company argued Jan. 9 that the Commerce Department had unreasonably elevated one country-of-origin factor -- research and development -- in importance above the other four in an antidumping duty review of solar cells from Cambodia (see 2412260039) (BYD (H.K.) Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00221).
The Commerce Department announced Jan. 8 that, on remand, it was still maintaining use of partial adverse facts available for steel exporter Nippon Steel in a review of hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan. It said it wasn’t enough that the exporter’s affiliate was refusing to provide certain requested information, nor that the exporter was prevented by Japanese law from making provision of that information a contractual obligation of the affiliate (Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00533).
The Commerce Department failed to justify its finding that a subsidy to exporter OCP from a program for relief from tax fines and penalties was de facto specific, the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 8. Remanding the countervailing duty investigation on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco for a second time, Judge Timothy Stanceu said the agency's altered defense of its specificity finding was no less "absurd" than it was in the first go-round.
Responding to a motion for judgment, the U.S. stood up for the Commerce Department’s scope ruling that pencil importer School Specialty’s products weren’t substantially transformed in the Philippines and should be subject to antidumping duties on pencils from China (School Specialty v. U.S., CIT # 24-00098).