The Court of International Trade on April 25 reversed the use of adverse facts available for Mexican rebar exporter Simec after the exporter couldn't provide certain downstream sales information by a supplemental questionnaire deadline. Judge Stephen Vaden said the Commerce Department abused its discretion by denying Simec’s timely extension request amid the COVID-19 pandemic, pointing out that three of Simec’s key accountants had died and a fourth had been intubated.
The Court of International Trade on April 24 sustained CBP's finding on remand that importer Columbia Aluminum Products didn't evade the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. But Judge Timothy Stanceu rejected Columbia's claim that CBP needed to immediately terminate the interim measures issued under the Enforce and Protect Act after reversing its original evasion finding.
Hemp cones, tubes and wraps marketed for use with “tobacco-free herbal blends” and featuring warning statements that they shouldn’t be used with illegal drugs or tobacco aren’t restricted merchandise and may be imported into the U.S., CBP said in a recent ruling.
The United States asked for 14 more days to file its reply brief in an appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the validity of the Commerce Department's non-market economy policy in antidumping duty cases. The government said it needs more time to prepare its draft brief and receive input from DOJ "supervisory counsel" and Commerce attorneys (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).
The Court of International Trade on April 22 sent back the Commerce Department's decision not to attribute subsidies received by lumber suppliers to respondents in an expedited countervailing duty review on Canadian softwood lumber. Judge Mark Barnett said that if Commerce continues to find that the respondents are the producers of the subject lumber, the agency must reconsider its decision to require an upstream subsidy allegation for lumber purchases within the class of covered merchandise.
The Court of International Trade on April 24 sustained CBP's decision on remand to find that importer Columbia Aluminum Products didn't evade the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, but held that CBP wasn't required to immediately reverse the interim measures on the company upon making a negative remand finding. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that the remand decision "is not in effect prior to the court's sustaining it through the entry of judgment."
Importer MKI Enterprise Group, doing business as Winbo USA, filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on April 22 to contest CBP's denial of a Section 301 exclusion for its entries of "steel side protective attachments for motor vehicles, specifically side bars, fern bars, and bars" from China (MKI Enterprise Group v. United States, CIT # 22-00131).
The Court of International Trade again remanded the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea, in an April 19 confidential opinion. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Mark Barnett gave the parties until April 26 to review the confidential information in the opinion. Barnett said Commerce shall "reconsider or further explain" its decision not to investigate the off-peak sale of electricity allegedly for less than adequate remuneration.
The Court of International Trade on April 19 sent back the International Trade Commission's decision to cumulate imports of oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Argentina, Mexico, Russia and South Korea, in part because the commission failed to take into account the effect of U.S. sanctions on Russia in assessing whether the Russian goods compete at the same level of competition as the good from the other nations.
A manufacturer must have attributed to them all subsidies received by a cross-owned input supplier’s upstream product that is “primarily dedicated to the production of the downstream product,” a domestic petitioner said in an April 17 brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It also argued that the “downstream product” doesn’t need to be “subject merchandise” (Gujarat Fluorochemicals v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1268).