The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo confirms that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit must use its own judgment rather than defer to the Commerce Department in reviewing the agency's multifactor test for assessing independence from de facto Chinese government control of export functions, exporter Pirelli Tyre Co. argued (Pirelli Tyre Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2266).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top 20 stories published in 2024. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference numbers.
Exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month to hear its antidumping duty scope case. The petition cast the lower court's decision sustaining the inclusion of its production in the scope of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand as a failure to apply the high court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated the principle of deferring to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. Wheatland Tube Co., Sup. Ct. 24-696).
Importer Integlobal Forest failed to convincingly argue that the Enforce and Protect Act isn't a strict liability statute, petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood argued. The coalition said both the "plain language of the statute and the overall statutory context" show that Congress didn't mean to require culpability of an importer as a "prerequisite" to an affirmative evasion finding (American Pacific Plywood v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03914).
Exporters led by Bio-Lab argued that the statute concerning surrogate value selection requires the Commerce Department to balance the importance of both economic and merchandise comparability rather than elevating one factor over the other. Filing a reply brief earlier this month at the Court of International Trade, Bio-Lab said that the court should find this to be the "best" reading of the statute, 19 U.S.C. 1677b(c), under the standard of review for ambiguous statutes established by the Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (Bio-Lab v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 24-00024).
Congress didn't give the Commerce Department authority to deviate from certain principles associated with anti-circumvention proceedings whenever it thinks the effectiveness of an AD/CVD measure has been threatened "by changes in manufacturing methods or supply chains," Solar cell exporter BYD (H.K.) Co. argued. Filing a reply brief last week with the Court of International Trade, BYD said Congress laid out only a "very limited number of specific manufacturing scenarios" that can be deemed "circumvention" (BYD (H.K.) Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00221).
Domestic producers do have standing to bring their case challenging emergency duty relief granted to solar cell importers to the trade court, those producers, led by Auxin Solar, said Dec. 19 (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).
The Commerce Department appropriately found that details about U.S. seafood seller Luscious Seafood's wholesaling operations don't support the company's claim that it was a bona fide wholesaler of the domestic like product, the U.S. argued in a reply brief filed last week at the Court of International Trade. The government said that, as a result, Commerce permissibly found Luscious' request for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam to be invalid (Luscious Seafood v. United States, CIT # 24-00069).
A recent Court of International Trade decision reviewing the Commerce Department's differential pricing methodology under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is relevant to resolve a nearly identical claim in a separate case, the U.S. told the trade court in a notice of supplemental authority (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00025).
Supporting its July motion for judgment (see 2407160051), Belgium citrate exporter Citribel again asked the Court of International Trade Dec. 6 to find that the Commerce Department’s refusal to conduct quarterly conversion cost analyses is unreasonable (Citribel v. U.S., CIT # 24-00010).