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.
The Commerce Department’s self-developed “levels of trade” test doesn’t comport with U.S. law, especially since the Supreme Court's holding in Loper Bright, Spanish aluminum exporter Compania Valenciana de Aluminio Baux argued Nov. 27 in support of its June motion for judgment (see 2406130052) (Compania Valenciana de Aluminio Baux, S.L.U. v. United States, CIT # 23-00259).
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.
Responding to tapered roller bearing exporters’ August motion for judgment that cited Loper Bright to challenge the Commerce Department’s use of Cohen’s d test in administrative reviews, the U.S. said Nov. 14 that the department still exercises significant discretion in antidumping and countervailing duty matters (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00025).
The U.S. argued Nov. 15 that an importer of Chinese-origin countertops had waived its challenge to CBP’s practice of initiating Enforce and Protect Act inquiries based on the agency’s “date of receipt” of a petition (Superior Commercial Solutions v. United States, CIT # 24-00052).
The U.S. ignored the Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo in defending its circumvention finding on exporter Canadian Solar, the solar panel exporter said in a Nov. 15 reply brief. Canadian Solar said the Commerce Department should not be shown "tremendous" deference, as claimed by the U.S., since the agency doesn't have "unbridled authority to make an affirmative finding of circumvention" (Canadian Solar International v. United States, CIT # 23-00222).
The Court of International Trade defined the term "partners" under the statute regarding affiliation analyses in antidumping duty cases as "a for profit cooperative endeavor in which parties share in risk and reward."
Congress gave the Commerce Department wide latitude to go after "masked" dumping, the Court of International Trade said in a decision made public Nov. 15 that upheld the agency's differential pricing analysis.
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Nov. 15 sustained parts and remanded parts of the antidumping duty investigation on lemon juice from Brazil. Judge Claire Kelly rejected the Commerce Department's definition of "partners" in sending back the agency's finding that exporter Louis Dreyfus Co. Sucos and an unnamed supplier aren't affiliated. Conducting an analysis of the affiliation statute under Loper Bright, Kelly said Congress didn't expressly give Commerce the authority to define the term "partners." The judge then defined the term as "a for profit cooperative endeavor in which parties share in risk and reward." The judge remanded the issue for Commerce to apply this definition in its affiliation analysis between Louis Dreyfus Co. and the supplier.
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Nov. 15 held that Congress meant to give the Commerce Department wide latitude to correct for "masked" dumping, sustaining the agency's differential pricing analysis. Judge Claire Kelly previously rejected exporter Garg Tube's challenge to the differential pricing analysis on the grounds that the company failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. In response to Garg's claim that the end of judicial deference to agencies' interpretations of federal statutes eliminated the need for exhaustion here, Kelly said this claim must fail because a statutory interpretation of the applicable statute doesn't "materially alter the result in this case." Kelly also sustained Commerce's decision on remand to drop its use of adverse facts available against Garg Tube.