The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 24 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's move to drop its particular market situation adjustment for a key input of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea in an antidumping duty review. Commerce had previously dropped the PMS adjustment for one of review's mandatory respondents but not the other. In the case's fourth remand results, the agency dropped the adjustment for the other, lowering non-selected respondent SeAH Steel Corp.'s dumping rate from 19.28% to 9.77%. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sustained the move to drop the adjustment for the other respondent.
The Commerce Department stuck by its positions in an antidumping duty review, in Aug. 23 remand results. The agency further explained its selection of India as the primary surrogate country and its analysis of respondent NTSF Seafoods' reporting of the company's ratio of whole live fish to fillets and the moisture content of the fillets (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT #20-00105).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit assigned three cases to the same merits panel in a text-only note. The cases, led by Adee Honey Farms, Hilex Poly and American Drew, argue that the text of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 as enacted by Congress expressly requires that CBP distribute "all interest" associated with antidumping and countervailing duties to affected domestic producers. CBP contested this, arguing that delinquency interest is not included in CDSOA distributions. The Court of International Trade ruled in CBP's favor, finding that customs was right to deny payouts of delinquency interest (see 2206160074) (Adee Honey Farms v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2105).
The Court of International Trade should consolidate two cases -- one of which is already a consolidated action brought by two importers -- because they both are challenging the same Enforce and Protect Act determination, the U.S. argued in an Aug. 19 brief. The cases -- one led by Far East American, the other led by InterGlobal Forest -- argue that CBP wasn't authorized to initiate the EAPA investigation and that CBP violated the plaintiffs' due process rights, and should be consolidated to preserve judicial efficiency, the U.S. said (Far East American v. U.S., CIT #22-00213) (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT #22-00214).
The Court of International Trade should send back the Commerce Department's constructed value (CV) profit rate for antidumping respondent Building Systems de Mexico (BSM) if the court does not uphold the de minimis rate calculated by Commerce on remand, BSM argued in Aug. 19 comments. Arguing that the remand results should be sustained, BSM, replying to the AD petitioner, continued to critique the CV profit rate in case the de minimis rate is not upheld (Building Systems de Mexico v. United States, CIT #20-00069).
Importer Mirror Metals and the Commerce Department need more time to work out the details of refunding Section 232 duties following Commerce's decision to grant retroactive tariff exclusion bids, according to an Aug. 22 status report filed with the Court of International Trade (Mirror Metals v. U.S., CIT #21-00144).
The Commerce Department unlawfully used an alternate method for calculating normal value in an antidumping duty review on goods from China, respondent Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products argued in an Aug. 22 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The exporter argued Commerce illegally based normal value on the price at which the subject merchandise, square tubes, is sold in other countries, rather than base normal value on the quantity of raw materials used to make the square tubes (Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00116).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 24 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's fourth remand results in a case on the 2015-16 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. In the remand results, Commerce dropped its finding that a particular market situation distorted the price of a key input of the steel pipe. Previously in the case, the agency dropped the PMS adjustment to one of the AD review respondents but not the other. The elimination of the adjustment for the other in the fourth remand results resulted in a decrease in non-selected respondent SeAH Steel Corp.'s dumping rate from 19.28% to 9.77%.
The Commerce Department in Aug. 22 comments at the Court of International Trade urged acceptance of its remand results in which it verified that a countervailing duty respondent's U.S. customers did not use China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. Commerce said that since it complied with the court's order to verify the U.S. customers' claims that they did not use the EBCP and that no parties oppose the remand, the court should uphold the decision that dropped the CVD rate from 25.90% to 15.36% (Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00166).