The Court of International Trade denied surety company American Home Assurance Co.'s bid to stay proceedings in a case in which the U.S. government is seeking to collect antidumping duties on canned mushrooms from China imported between 2000 and 2001. AHAC wanted proceedings stayed until a resolution is reached in another case that also deals with when the statute of limitations runs out on when the U.S. can collect payments on customs bonds. The DOJ opposed the stay bid, arguing that it would be harmed due to its ongoing discovery efforts (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175). DOJ is seeking to recover a customs bond for unpaid antidumping duties on the mushrooms from China, arguing that sureties are liable for paying the unpaid duties. CIT already ordered the parties to conduct discovery to find if AHAC suffered actual harm as a result of the government's "extensive delay" in issuing the bills for the duties after the entries were liquidated. In addition to opposing the stay motion on grounds that it would harm this current discovery period (see 2112100061), DOJ also said AHAC failed to show any hardship in being required to move forward with discovery.
The Commerce Department can reduce an antidumping duty review respondent's U.S. price by the amount of their Section 232 duties paid, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 20 opinion. Commerce also doesn't have to notify the respondent that it intends to reduce the U.S. price by the amount of the Section 232 duties paid since notice and comment procedures don't apply to antidumping administrative procedures, Judge Jane Restani said.
The Commerce Department's decision to find affiliation between antidumping duty respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company and some of its Thai customers was not backed by enough evidence, the respondent argued in a Dec. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Relying on information from the petitioner that is "vague and confusing" and not always connected to the merchandise under review, Commerce made an errant call, the complaint said. Further, the agency's decision to hit Saha Thai with partial adverse facts available based on its non-cooperation in the review was not supported by law, the company said (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Limited v. U.S., CIT #21-00627).
The Commerce Department needs to reconsider its decision to deny an antidumping duty review respondent a level-of-trade (LOT) adjustment related to the company's home market sales, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 17 opinion. Seeing as the decision was based on a factual finding not backed by enough evidence and a second finding that is "vague and conclusory," Commerce needs to take another look at the issue, Judge Timothy Stanceu said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Antidumping petitioner Wheatland Tube Company is appealing an October Court of International Trade opinion sustaining the Commerce Department's decision to drop a particular market situation adjustment from the sales-below-cost test. According to a Dec. 17 notice of appeal, Wheatland Tube will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case concerns the 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. The trade court originally found that the statute does not permit a PMS adjustment to a respondent's cost of production in the sales-below-cost test (see 2110190054). This interpretation was recently upheld by the Federal Circuit, which found that such an adjustment is only permitted when calculating constructed value (see 2112100039) (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00107).
The Commerce Department properly fixed an error in its liquidation instructions, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 17 opinion sustaining the agency's remand results in an antidumping review. Fixing the name of one of the mandatory respondents that received its own rate in the review, Commerce's remand allowed the respondent -- Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. -- to receive the proper rate on its entries.
Antidumping respondent Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group continued to argue that assigning it the China-wide entity rate is an unfair application of adverse facts available in Dec. 16 comments on the Commerce Department's remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. Notably, though, Jinqiao Flooring did not mention a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion that found that China-wide rates can still be based on AFA even if no members of the countrywide entity were found to be uncooperative. Nevertheless, the company claimed it should be granted a separate dumping rate and that substantial evidence does not back Commerce's contention that it is de facto controlled by the Chinese government (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group v. U.S., CIT #18-00191).
The Court of International Trade sustained on Dec. 20 the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico in which plaintiff Deacero served as a mandatory respondent. The court held, as it has done before, that Commerce can deduct Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from Daecero's U.S. price because they can be treated as U.S. import duties. Further, Judge Jane Restani said Commerce did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act by not notifying Daecero of its decision to deduct the Section 232 duties. Since AD procedures are fact-based, investigative activities, they are not beholden to notice-and-comment procedures, she said.
Although the Commerce Department could get a more accurate dumping rate for the non-individually examined respondents in antidumping reviews by selecting more mandatory respondents, it has no legal requirement to do so, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 17 opinion. Sustaining Commerce's remand results, Judge Richard Eaton said that the agency properly excluded one of the two mandatory respondents' zero percent dumping rate and merely applied the other respondent's rate to all others in the review. The court also upheld Commerce's selection of surrogate data in the face of the plaintiffs' challenge.