The Commerce Department was not justified in using adverse facts available in an antidumping duty review on respondent Xinjiang Meihua Amino Acid Co. since the respondent was fully cooperative and there was no gap in the record, consolidated plaintiff Jianlong Biotechnology Co. argued in a July 19 brief at the Court of International Trade. Further, there is not record evidence supporting the fact that the 77.04% dumping margin Commerce assigned to the non-individually examined companies "reflects in any way the dumping rate of the cooperative separate rate respondents," Jianlong Biotechnology argued (Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00069).
A recent Court of International Trade opinion finding that the U.S. cannot assert a counterclaim in customs classification litigation "is persuasive" in importer Second Nature Designs' case, the plaintiff argued in a July 20 notice of supplemental authority at the trade court. In Second Nature's case, the importer is seeking a different classification for its dried botanical entries. The U.S. has argued it can file counterclaims seeking its own preferred classification of the dried botanicals (see 2203230024). In the recent CIT opinion, Judge Claire Kelly held that the U.S. cannot make counterclaims in customs cases because there is no statutory authority to do so, redenominating the counterclaim as a defense (see 2207200052). Second Nature said in its notice that while the opinion is not binding, it's persuasive over the U.S.'s ability to assert a counterclaim (Second Nature Designs v. U.S., CIT #21-00271).
The Court of International Trade should deny a motion by the Government that would force importer Second Nature to file a complaint in a case concerning the proper classification of imported botanical products, according to a July 20 motion by Second Nature (Second Nature Designs Ltd. v. United States, CIT #17-00131).
The Commerce Department's refusal to reopen the record after an antidumping review was complete to correct ministerial errors "was a reasonable exercise of its discretion to preserve the finality of its decision," AD petitioner GEO Specialty Chemicals argued in a July 21 brief at the Court of International Trade. GEO said that Commerce's discretion to not amend the final results is "broad," and that the error was not discovered until "well after" the five-day window after the release of the final calculations to file ministerial errors (Nagase & Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).
The Commerce Department in July 20 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade stuck by its methodology used to calculate profit for the constructed value of antidumping duty respondent Building Systems de Mexico (BSM). Commerce also dropped the use of adverse facts available for one unreportable sale, used the date of substantial completion of a fabricated structural steel (FSS) project as the date of sale rather than the date of the purchase order or sales order acknowledgment, and didn't exclude the operating results of the business unit in question from the calculation of the constructed export price profit rate (Building Systems de Mexico v. U.S., CIT #20-00069).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's own precedent means it should have relied on the U.S. dollar price of home market sales in an antidumping duty case instead of foreign currentcy amounts to avoid large exchange rate fluctuations, plaintiff Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi argued in a July 18 reply brief. Filing its arguments at the Court of International Trade, Habas said that the "evidentiary record" shows Commerce should not have valued Habas's sales using the Turkish lira (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. United States, CIT #21-00527).
CBP improperly denied of protests of antidumping duties on wire rods from Korea due to a missed deadline even though the protests were filed within 180 days of liquidation and liquidation was suspended when CBP says the deadline for protests began to run, Kiswire said in a July 19 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Kiswire Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00181).
The Court of International Trade entered stipulated judgment July 19 in a case over denied Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions. The case was reported to have been settled via mediation in February, with the trade court saying all the issues brought by plaintiffs Voestalpine High Performance Metals and Edro Specialty Steels were settled (see 2202080057). The court then held a status conference to discuss the availability of a remedy for already-liquidated entries. The parties reached a remedy stipulating that CBP will reliquidate the liquidated entries without the Section 232 duties and that refunds will be paid with interest, the judgment said. Voestalpine and Edro brought their case to CIT to contest the denial of 502 exclusion requests for high alloyed specialty steel products (see 2110010032) (Voestalpine High Performance Metals v. U.S., CIT #21-00093).
CBP illegally found that importers American Pacific Plywood Inc. (APPI), Far East American and Liberty Woods International evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China by transshipping their goods through Vietnam, the importers argued in two July 20 complaints at the Court of International Trade. The importers' six- and 10-count complaints against CBP over its Enforce and Protect Act investigation include claims the agency illegally initiated the investigation, violated the importers' due process rights and improperly found that all of its imports were covered merchandise (Far East American v. United States, CIT #22-00213) (American Pacific Plywood Inc. v. U.S., CIT #22-00214).