The Court of International Trade in a decision made public March 19 sent back the Commerce Department's decision to grant respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals a constructed export price offset in the antidumping duty investigation on granular polytetrafluorethylene resin from India, despite finding that the company failed to establish the amount and nature of the offset.
In a March 18 brief supporting a Jan. 24 motion to dismiss (see 2401230040), the U.S. again argued in a case involving the antidumping and countervailing duty pause on Southeast Asian solar panels that the Court of International Trade lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) because it “is, or could have been” available under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (Auxin Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00274).
Exporter PT. Zinus Global Indonesia on March 14 dismissed its lawsuit at the Court of International Trade challenging the 2020-22 review of the antidumping duty order on mattresses from Indonesia. The exporter filed the complaint in the case last month, contesting the Commerce Department's constructed value profit and selling expense ratios, treatment of B grade mattress sales as U.S. sales and differential pricing analysis. No reason was provided as to the suit's dismissal (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, CIT # 24-00004).
Petitioners contested in comments March 13 a third remand redetermination in which the Commerce Department reluctantly ruled that a German government subsidy was not specific to a German exporter of forged steel fluid end block. Commerce failed to conduct a de facto specificity analysis, they argued (BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. U.S., CIT # 21-00080).
Certain types of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe exported from the U.S. to Mexico for reprocessing and subsequent re-importation are not covered by the antidumping duty order on Mexican standard pipe, the Commerce Department said in a March 13 scope ruling. The products’ country of origin is the U.S., not Mexico, the department said.
Correction: The Commerce Department on March 12 conducted "under respectful protest" a pass-through analysis to show, by court order, that an Indonesian tax program that lowered the cost of an input wasn't being double counted by antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on biodiesel from Indonesia. The agency continued to find that there was no double remedy and that it could disregard some sales due to a particular market situation (see 2403130049).
Indian exporter Kumar Industries and the U.S. agreed that each should bear its own costs after Kumar withdrew its appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an antidumping duty case (Kumar Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1293).
The U.S. on March 13 responded to a petitioner’s remand redetermination comments after that petitioner directly told Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Stanceu he had been “misled” to issue an erroneous ruling (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00116).
Hyundai Challenges Commerce's de Facto Specificity Analysis on Korean Electricity in CVD Review Suit
Exporter Hyundai Steel Co. argued against the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration is de facto specific in the 2021 countervailing duty review on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea. Filing a motion for judgment on March 12, Hyundai claimed that the record doesn't show that the steel industry "received a disproportionately large amount of this subsidy" as required by a de facto specificity analysis (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00211).
The Commerce Department on March 12 said that on remand it treated exporter Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. as a mandatory respondent in the 2020-21 review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan, assigning the company a 5.2% AD rate. The agency asked for the remand so it could grant the exporter mandatory respondent status following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that said Commerce must use more than one mandatory respondent where multiple companies request review (see 2208290026) (Optima Steel International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00108).