The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 26 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case over the 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from South Korea. In the remand results, Commerce reversed its decisions finding that a particular market situation existed for a key input of the OCTG products, and adjusting respondent Nexteel Co.'s reported costs for the value of non-prime products at their sales price and allocating the difference between the full production cost and market value of the non-prime products to the production costs of the prime OCTG.
Only an admissibility decision from CBP can stop a deemed exclusion from happening according to the law, importer Root Sciences argued at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a bid to establish subject-matter jurisdiction in its case over seized imports. The Court of International Trade previously ruled that it doesn't have jurisdiction over cases in which CBP seized the subject goods, finding that a seizure does not constitute an admissibility determination (see 2110070022). Root argued that this decision throws it into a "jurisdictional wilderness" and calls into question the validity of past decisions the trade court relied on for the notion that seizure before the expiration of the 30-day deemed exclusion window stops the running of the statutory deemed exclusion period (Root Sciences v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1795).
The Commerce Department violated the law by hitting mandatory antidumping review respondent Grupo Simec with a total adverse facts available rate of 66.70%, non-selected respondent Grupo Acerero argued in an Aug. 26 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The total AFA rate was disproportionate since Grupo Simec put forth "significant effort" in responding to Commerce's questionnaires, the brief said. Grupo Acerero further railed against its own 33.35% rate that was found by simply averaging the total AFA rate and a zero percent rate given to the other mandatory respondent (Grupo Acerero v. U.S., CIT #22-00230).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 29 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision to reverse its finding that a particular market situation existed for an input of oil country tubular goods in South Korea. The court previously remanded the PMS determination as being unsupported by substantial evidence. The agency then flipped its finding, prompting Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves to sustain the remand results. Previously, the judge also sent back Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test to root out masked dumping, but since respondent SeAH Steel Corp. was given a de minimis dumping margin, the issue was moot.
The Commerce Department cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping review where multiple exporters have requested a review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in an Aug. 29 nonprecedential opinion. Reversing the Court of International Trade's finding, judges Pauline Newman, Alvin Schall and Sharon Prost said Commerce's interpretation of the statute finding that it can use only one respondent runs "contrary to the statute's unambiguous language." The judges ruled the agency has not shown it to be otherwise reasonable to calculate the all-others rate based on only one respondent and said the directive to find a weighted average gives no reason why it's reasonable to use only a single rate.
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 30 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia. On remand in the case, Commerce dropped its reliance on adverse facts available based on the respondent BlueScope Steel's U.S. sales quantity and value reporting data. The move dropped the dumping rate for BlueScope from 99.20% to 4.95%.
The Commerce Department erred in applying adverse facts available to countervailing duty review respondent Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co. (GRT), the respondent argued in an Aug. 25 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The case concerns the 2020 review of the CVD order on truck and bus tires from China. Commerce hit GRT with a 1.78% AFA rate over the respondent's supposed use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program -- a position that has repeatedly been struck down by the trade court. After the review, GRT filed its two-count complaint to argue that Commerce erred in using AFA over the EBCP and that "upon information and belief, Commerce erred in other aspects of its Final Results with respect to GRT and the EBC program that will be evident upon review of the administrative record in this case" (Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00229).
The Department of Commerce routinely made minimal effort to verify claims that imported specialty steel products easily could be supplied by domestic producers and therefore incorrectly denied product exclusions from Section 232 steel tariffs, LE Commodities said in an Aug. 24 complaint to the Court of International Trade (LE Commodities, LLC v. United States, CIT # 22-00245)
The Commerce Department cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping review where multiple exporters have requested a review, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in an Aug. 29 opinion. Reversing a decision from the Court of International Trade, Judges Pauline Newman, Alvin Schall and Sharon Prost said Commerce's interpretation of the statute finding that it can use only one respondent runs "contrary to the statute's unambiguous language." The judges ruled the agency hasn't shown it to be otherwise reasonable to calculate the all-others rate based on only one respondent and said the directive to find a weighted average gives no reason why it's reasonable to use only a single rate.
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 29 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision to reverse its finding that a particular market situation existed for an input of oil country tubular goods in South Korea. The court previously remanded the PMS determination in the 2017-18 administrative review of the AD order on OCTG as being unsupported by substantial evidence. The agency then flipped its finding, prompting Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves to sustain the remand results. Previously, the judge also sent back Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test to root out masked dumping, but since respondent SeAH Steel Corp. was given a de minimis dumping margin, the issue was moot.