Importer Prysmian Cables and Systems again said Aug. 15 that the plain language of the executive order establishing Section 232 exclusion requests doesn’t allow the Commerce Department to base denials on national security considerations (Prysmian Cables and Systems USA v. United States, CIT # 24-00101).
Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly again remanded the Commerce Department’s de facto specificity finding regarding South Korea’s below-cost provision of off-peak electricity in a countervailing duty administrative review, saying the department still hasn’t rationally explained why it grouped three unrelated industries and found that they, together, disproportionately received the subsidy.
The Court of International Trade affirmed Aug. 11 the Commerce Department’s decision to, in an antidumping duty administrative review, reject Chinese solar cell exporter Yingli China’s separate rate application even though its U.S. sales were conducted through an affiliate, Yingli Green Energy Americas, with separate ownership.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 19 affirmed the Commerce Department’s decision to reject an exporter’s response to a separate rate questionnaire that had already been rescinded.
Importers' argument that the tariffs imposed using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act don't arise out of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. "strains the statutory text past the breaking point," the government argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
All the parties opposing the results of an antidumping duty review on Chinese activated carbon argued that Commerce failed to correct two mathematical mistakes in its review results despite timely ministerial error allegations (Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00262).
The Indonesian Fishery Producers Processing and Marketing Association on Aug. 14 dismissed its case at the Court of International Trade on the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury finding on shrimp from Indonesia, Ecuador, India and Vietnam. The association brought the case to argue that the ITC erred in finding "significant underselling" was the basis on which to determine that the shrimp imports injured the U.S. domestic industry (see 2502270020) (Indonesia Fishery Producers Processing and Marketing Association v. United States, CIT # 25-00035).
In a decision made public Aug. 19, Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly again said the Commerce Department’s de facto specificity finding regarding the South Korean steel industry’s use of a countrywide electricity program lacked a rational explanation. Remanding the finding again, she told Commerce to apply the disproportionality analysis she defined in her first remand order (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00211).
The Commerce Department's failure to investigate and attribute subsidies received by respondent Antiqa Minerals' cross-owned affiliates and their suppliers in a countervailing duty investigation was unlawful, petitioner The Coalition for Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile argued in an Aug. 15 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Challenging the CVD investigation on ceramic tile from India, the coalition said Commerce's cross-ownership analysis of Antiqa was unsupported by substantial evidence (The Coalition for Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile v. United States, CIT # 25-00152).
In an opinion made public Aug. 19, Court of International Trade Judge Mark Barnett affirmed the Commerce Department's decision to reject a separate rate application submitted by solar cell exporter Yingli Energy (China). He observed that the exporter's majority shareholder was a Chinese government agency. He also upheld Commerce's rebuttable presumption that exporters in nonmarket economies are government-controlled (Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited v. United States, CIT # 24-00131).