The Commerce Department properly dropped its use of facts available over a South Korean port usage rights program in a countervailing duty review, the Court of International Trade ruled Sept. 19. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves also found that because the result is a de minimis rate, reviewing whether the program is countervailable "would have no practical significance and is mooted," sustaining Commerce's remand results.
Domestic companies party to an antidumping duty matter are incorrect to argue that the Commerce Department should continue finding that a particular market situation exists for a welded line pipe input, Commerce argued in Sept. 16 comments at the Court of International Trade. Plaintiff Nexteel Co. added that the defendant-intervenors' points are moot since they have not highlighted any error of fact or law made by the trade court in striking down Commerce's past rationale for its PMS finding. The statute also does not allow for a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, Nexteel and the U.S. said in rebuking the U.S. companies (Nexteel Co. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03898).
The Commerce Department erred by failing to reduce respondent Koehler Paper's constructed export price by interest accrued on unpaid antidumping duties, plaintiffs Domtar Corp. and Appvion argued in a Sept. 15 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Commerce failed to explain why this unpaid interest should be added to the cost of production rather than taken from the CEP given that the agency has the authority to make needed adjustments to cost items that are treated as a CEP deduction and not just to cost items that are components of COP, the brief said (Matra Americas v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00632).
A text-only order Sept. 15 of the three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade granted the motion for leave filed by three importers to enter into the record of the Section 301 litigation their previously unexpected amicus brief in the Section 301 litigation (see 2209140054). Verifone, Drone Nerds and Specialized Bicycle Components argued in the brief for the lists 3 and 4A tariffs to be vacated for Administrative Procedure Act violations at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative that remain uncured after the agency filed its Aug. 1 remand determination. The three importers are “interested parties” to the litigation, as they are “individual claimants” among the thousands of Section 301 lawsuits filed, and because they “do business in and with China,” their motion said (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 19 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. On remand, Commerce dropped its use of facts otherwise available for a South Korean port usage rights program, resulting in a de minimis rate for respondent Hyundai Steel. Though Hyundai continued to argue against Commerce's decision to countervail the program, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that consideration of the benefit finding "would have no practical significance and is mooted."
A recent Court of International decision in a countervailing duty case is relevant to a case brought by The Mosaic Co. over the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation into phosphate fertilizers from Mexico, CVD respondent OCP told the Court of International Trade. The decision in the past case, also brought by Mosaic, said Commerce reasonably excluded freight, import duties and value-added tax from the tier-three benchmark price for phosphate rock (see 2209020061) (The Mosaic Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #21-00116).
The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's determination that the South Korean government's provision of port usage rights constitutes a countervailable benefit, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 15 reply brief. Responding to respondent Hyundai Steel, Commerce said, contrary to what the company says, there is no evidence to show that the period of port usage for which Hyundai does not pay fees was specifically calculated to match the costs incurred by Hyundai for building the port (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT #21-00304).
Automated shade machines are neither "curtains" nor " builders' wares" but are complex machines classifiable in the tariff schedule as appliances with individual functions, importer Lutron said in a Sept. 14 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Lutron Electronics v. U.S., CIT #22-00264).
The omission of certain documents related to service-related revenues (SRRs) in an antidumping review does not warrant the use of total adverse facts available, respondent Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems argued in a Sept. 15 brief at the Court of International Trade. Nor does the respondent's failure to report a sale of a large power transformer that the Commerce Department believed was made in South Korea, Hyundai said in vying for partial AFA (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems v. U.S., CIT #20-00108).
The Commerce Department properly found that the South Korean government did not provide a countervailable subsidy via the provision of electricity below cost, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 12 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case's second visit to the appellate court. Replying to countervailing duty petitioner and plaintiff-appellant Nucor Corp., the government said that it carried out a lawful "Tier 3" less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) analysis, looking at whether the Korean government sets its tariffs pursuant to market principles, and that it did not violate the Federal Circuit's prior ruling in the case since it did not undertake a preferentiality analysis. Nucor ignored the "lion's share of Commerce's actual determination," when arguing that the agency did carry out a preferentiality analysis, the brief said (POSCO v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1525).