The U.S. defended its use of its quarterly cost methodology in calculating exporter Officine Tecnosider's antidumping duty rate in the 2020-21 administrative review of the AD order on steel plate from Italy, arguing that petitioner Nucor Corp.'s claims to the contrary fail to show that it's the "one and only" reasonable outcome. Submitting a brief on March 19 in defense of its remand results, Commerce said it wasn't free to ignore evidence of a link between the respondent's costs and sales prices during the review period (Officine Tecnosider v. United States, CIT # 23-00001).
The Court of International Trade on March 21 sustained the Commerce Department's third remand results in the 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. The agency had again refused to investigate the provision of off-peak electricity for less than adequate remuneration. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce reasonably laid out the evidence that petitioner Nucor Corp. should have provided to "justify a new subsidy investigation of this subset of the broader electricity pricing scheme."
No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
The Commerce Department said on remand at the Court of International Trade that importer Hardware Resources' edge-glued wood boards are wood mouldings and millwork products subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders on that product from China (Hardware Resources v. United States, CIT # 23-00150).
CBP is not entitled to Customs Passenger Processing Fees paid by individual passengers that cancel their tickets and never actually travel to the U.S., the Court of International Trade held on March 18. Siding with Southwest Airlines, Judge Gary Katzmann said that the statute, 19 U.S.C. 58c(a), doesn't allow CBP to collect the fees where the customer doesn't travel to the U.S. and no customs inspection services are performed.
Dutch mushroom exporter Prochamp said March 14 that Germany had been the right third-country comparison market in an antidumping duty investigation of its products, echoing the argument raised by the U.S. (see 2503030073) (Giorgio Foods v. United States, CIT # 23-00133).
Chinese drone maker DJI urged the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the Pentagon to provide its counsel with classified information in the company's suit against its designation as a Chinese military company. DJI argued that the information is "undoubtedly" relevant since DOD used it as the basis for DJI's designation, and that disclosure is needed because the court can't evaluate the designation without access to the "very information on which that designation is based" (SZ DJI Technology Co. v. U.S. Department of Defense, D.D.C. # 24-02970).
Importer JBF Bahrain and the U.S. are progressing toward a settlement of the importer's customs case on CBP's denial of duty-free treatment under the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement for the company's polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film imports. Filing a joint status report on March 12 at the Court of International Trade, JBF said it has "resolved technical issues and provided document production to the defendant," while the U.S., through CBP, continues to examine "representative samples of the raw materials, intermediate product, and imported product" (JBF Bahrain v. United States, CIT # 23-00067).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last week questioned the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test in identifying "masked" dumping in the lead case on the use of the test, which returned to the appellate court after its initial remand in 2023. Judges Alan Lourie, William Bryson and Leonard Stark asked counsel for exporter SeAH Steel Corp. if Commerce has a "lot of discretion" in how it uses the test, and they asked the government's attorney if the agency has discretion to use the test even if it's statistically unsound (Stupp Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).