The Court of International Trade in an April 22 confidential decision remanded the International Trade Commission's injury determination on phosphate fertilizer from Morocco and Russia. A docket entry from the court said on remand the ITC can "take new evidence, reconsider existing evidence, or take any other action allowed by its procedures" to reach a conclusion supported by substantial evidence (OCP v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00219).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 23 again rejected the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its analysis to detect and address "masked" dumping. A day after the court resoundingly struck down the agency's use of the test in a separate case (see Ref:2504220030]), Judges Alan Lourie, William Bryson and Leonard Stark said they were bound by the court's day-old ruling.
The Commerce Department cannot use the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping when the "underlying data is not normally distributed, equally variable, and equally and sufficiently numerous," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on April 22. Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen said that it's "unreasonable" to use the test when it's applied to "data sets that do not satisfy the statistical assumptions."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 23 again rejected the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test to detect targeted dumping in the second decision on the issue in as many days. The court said it's bound by yesterday's decision rejecting the test for not adhering to basic statistical assumptions. Writing individually, Judge Leonard Stark suggested he may have been compelled to reach a different position on the use of the test as "one step" in Commerce's "three-step differential pricing analysis" if it weren't for the court's recent decision.
The Court of International Trade cannot order the reliquidation of finally liquidated entries except where a protest has been filed or a civil action has been filed challenging an antidumping duty or countervailing duty determination, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on April 21. Judges Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen held that the statute, 19 U.S.C. 1514, doesn't let the trade court order reliquidation based on equitable considerations.
The Commerce Department's inclusion of Export Packers Company's imported garlic in the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic isn't backed by substantial evidence, the Court of International Trade held on April 18. Judge Jane Restani said that Commerce's focus on two prior scope rulings concerning garlic blanched in boiling water is "misplaced" and that the agency's remaining (k)(2) analysis is "similarly flawed."
The Court of International Trade on April 18 upheld the International Trade Commission's preliminary negative injury determination on aluminum extrusions from the Dominican Republic. Judge Lisa Wang rejected all three claims from petitioners U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition and United Steelworkers, which challenged the ITC's conclusions that the Dominican imports were negligible, there was "no likelihood of contrary evidence to arise in the final phase which would warrant a non-negligibility determination" and the Dominican imports didn't have the "potential to exceed the negligibility threshold in the imminent future."
The three judges assigned to the case challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act -- Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif -- may be poised to rein in the administration's use of the act to impose tariffs, various attorneys told us. Based on their prior jurisprudence and professional backgrounds, the attorneys said, it seems likely the trio may pare back Trump's tariff-setting authority, though it's ultimately unclear to what extent.
The Court of International Trade partly granted vehicle accessories importer Keystone Automotive Operations’ request for reconsideration of an Oct. 7 decision. CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said she had conducted a “traditional eo nomine versus principal use analysis” in her decision, but that Keystone had actually argued that the United States Trade Representative had outlined a “new legal standard” for applying the relevant Section 301 tariff exclusion (Keystone Automotive Operations v. United States, CIT # 21-00215).
After a remand by Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly (see 2412170041), the Commerce Department again found in a countervailing duty administrative review’s final results that South Korea’s provision of off-peak electricity for less than adequate remuneration was specific to the country’s steel industry (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00211).