The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Taiwan in a Dec. 23 opinion. The plaintiff, Power Steel Co. argued that Commerce can't deduct Section 232 duties from the U.S. export price and that the agency was wrong to find that Power Steel paid Section 232 duties for all its U.S. sales. While Judge Jane Restani upheld Commerce's Section 232 deduction, the judge told the agency to reconsider whether record evidence shows that Power Steel did not pay Section 232 duties for some of its entries.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 22 again remanded the Commerce Department's second remand results in the antidumping duty investigation of steel nails from Oman. The second remand results had been filed in response to a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion that said Commerce didn't adequately explain its reliance on a financial statement from Hitech Fastener Manufacturer (Thailand) Co. -- a third-country company -- to calculate constructed-value profit since Commerce didn't adequately consider whether Hitech had received countervailable subsidies. CIT Judge Mark Barnett found Commerce's decision to stick with Hitech's financial statement wasn't in compliance with the Federal Circuit.
The Commerce Department found that importer Star Pipe Products' 11 ductile iron flanges are not subject to the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China, in Dec. 22 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade, though it did so under protest (Star Pipe Products v. United States, CIT #17-00236).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors in an antidumping case are appealing the Court of International Trade's decision to uphold the Commerce Department's surrogate pick, the litigants said in a Dec. 21 notice of appeal. In an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China, Commerce picked Malaysia as the primary surrogate despite still using a Romanian company's financial statements to determine the surrogate financial ratios (see 2110250027). The court also upheld the agency's surrogate value selection for bituminous coal, an input of activated carbon, and Commerce's financial ratio calculations. The case will be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The plaintiffs, Carbon Activated Tianjin, Carbon Activated Corporation and Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon, along with plaintiff-intervenors Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products, Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon, Ningxia Mineral & Chemical and Shanxi Sincere Industrial, are appealing the case (Carbon Activated Tianjin v. U.S., CIT #20-00007).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 20 extended the time to conclude mediation in a case involving the Commerce Department's denial of Section 232 exclusions until Feb. 15, 2022. The plaintiffs, Voetsalpine High Performance Metals Corp. and Edro Specialty Steels, brought their case to CIT to contest the denial of 502 exclusion requests for high alloyed specialty steel products (see 2110010032). As he did in six other contested exclusion denials, Judge M. Miller Baker sent the cases to mediation before Judge Leo Gordon (Voestalpine High Performance Metals v. U.S., CIT #21-00093).
The Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in a countervailing duty review over the respondents' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program is not backed by sufficient evidence, nonselected respondent Evolutions Flooring and Struxtur said in a Dec. 20 complaint. Filing at the Court of International Trade, the companies also contested Commerce's calculations for various inputs' less-than-adequate remuneration programs (Evolutions Flooring v. U.S., CIT #21-00591).
The Court of International Trade should reject exporter The Ancientree Cabinet Co.'s argument that the Commerce Department's calculation of financial ratios in an antidumping duty investigation is inconsistent with the agency's practice, defendant-intervenor American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance said in a Dec. 21 brief. In the reply to Ancientree's comments on Commerce's remand results, the AKCA also said Ancientree's argument against the accuracy of Commerce's financial ratio calculation is meritless because using more line items doesn't always result in more accuracy (The Ancientree Cabinet Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00114).
The Commerce Department continued to find in Dec. 21 remand results submitted to the Court of International trade that certain flanges are subject to the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China. Holding that the flanges from Crane Resistoflex have the physical characteristics described in the scope's first paragraph, the agency again defended its position that Crane's flanges are within the scope of the order. In line with CIT's instructions, though, Commerce also dropped its arguments defending its scope decision using the AD petition, ITC report and past scope determinations (MCC Holdings dba Crane Resistoflex v. U.S., CIT #18-00248).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: