The Commerce Department found in Jan. 4 remand results that dual-stenciled standard pipe and line pipe aren't to be included within the scope of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Flipping its position following remand instructions from the Court of International Trade, Commerce nonetheless expressed a series of reservations over its decision to do so, dubbing the remand order "problematic."
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiffs China Custom Manufacturing and Greentec Engineering will appeal a December Court of International Trade ruling that found that certain solar roof mountings don't quality for the finished merchandise exclusion of the relevant antidumping and countervailing duty orders (see 2112070031). Per a Jan. 3 notice of appeal, the pair will take their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CIT Judge Stephen Vaden ruled that the mountings fall within the scope of the ADD/CVD orders on aluminum extrusions from China. He said the mountings in question are subassemblies and, as such, cannot be considered final goods to be defined under the finished merchandise exemption (China Custom Manufacturing Inc. v. U.S., CIT #20-00121).
The Commerce Department erred when it weight-averaged reported raw material premium costs (DIRMATMP) for all control numbers (CONNUMs) because that distorts their costs, antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi said in a Jan. 4 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The respondent further argued against Commerce's decisions to deduct the amount of Section 232 duties paid from its U.S. price, limit Assan's full duty drawback adjustment and treat certain management fees as indirect selling expenses (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #21-00616).
CBP misclassified Mitsubishi Power America's supported selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalysts, resulting in the entries wrongly being assessed Section 301 duties, the importer argued in a Jan. 4 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Instead, the supported SCR catalysts fit under a different Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading that was granted an exclusion to the Section 301 China tariffs by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the importer said (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. U.S., CIT #21-00573).
The Commerce Department properly denied antidumping duty respondent Icdas a duty drawback adjustment due to the fact that the respondent gave no evidence that its Inward Processing Certificates (i.e., requests to gain the drawback) were closed, the Department of Justice told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 30 brief. DOJ argued that the denial doesn't cut against past practice, and even if it did, would be a reasonable position to hold (Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi v. U.S., CIT #21-00306).
Section 232 allows the president to expand tariff action beyond procedural time limits laid out in the law, as he did when he expanded the tariffs to cover steel and aluminum derivatives over a year after the tariffs were initially imposed, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Jan. 3 brief. Relying heavily on a recent CAFC opinion on an increase of tariffs on Turkish steel, DOJ said the president is allowed to expand Section 232 tariffs to products beyond the ones laid out in the original commerce secretary report as long as it's part of the original "plan of action" (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2066).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A group of domestic chloropicrin producers will appeal a November Court of International Trade decision that found that the Commerce Department didn't abuse its discretion when it denied the producers' bid to retroactively extend a filing deadline. According to the Jan. 3 notice of appeal, the chloropicrin producers -- Trinity Manufacturing, Ahsta Chemicals and Niklor Chemical Company -- will take their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the decision, the trade court didn't buy the plaintiffs' excuses that the deadline was missed due to a combination of technical and medical issues. The court subsequently upheld Commerce's rejection of the extension requests following revocation of the relevant antidumping duty order because of the missed deadline (Trinity Manufacturing Inc., et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-03831).
The Court of International Trade granted a stay in an antidumping duty case brought by Interpipe Ukraine until the question over the legality of reducing the U.S. price by the amount of Section 232 duties paid is sorted out. In particular, Interpipe Ukraine's case is stayed until an action brought by Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret is fully decided at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, since that case also concerns the question of Section 232 reductions (see 2106170026). CIT has held that the Commerce Department can reduce a respondent's U.S. price by the amount of Section 232 duties paid in an AD case (Interpipe Ukraine LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00530).