The Commerce Department must consider evidence on remand regarding the control antidumping duty respondent Shanghai Tainai could have exerted over its suppliers before the agency hits the company with partial adverse facts available, the Court of International Trade ruled. Issuing the Sept. 14 opinion in a case on the 2019-20 review of the AD order on tapered roller bearings from China, Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce failed to consider the factors set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in using AFA on a fully cooperative respondent that "lacks the ability to control its suppliers."
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 14 opinion remanded elements and sustained elements of the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation into phosphate fertilizers from Morocco.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade isn't "statutorily barred from granting" importer PrimeSource Building Products' request for a court order stopping CBP from collecting Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from the importer, PrimeSource said in a Sept. 12 reply brief. Addressing the government's claim that the trade court lacks the authority to grant the partial stay, the importer said the request, which seeks a stay pending the U.S. Supreme Court's resolution of the case challenging the expansion of Section 232 duties to cover "derivative" products, seeks relief from CIT and not the appellate court (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., CIT # 20-00032).
The Commerce Department illegally assigned adverse facts available to Vietnamese hardwood plywood producers for alleged "deficiencies, inconsistencies and/or contradictions in their responses," as part of an antidumping and countervailing duty anti-circumvention proceeding, importer USPLY said in a Sept. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce failed to tell the Vietnamese producers of these supposed consistencies or give them an opportunity to rebut them, the importer argued (USPLY v. United States, CIT # 23-0156).
The Commerce Department's constructed value profit and selling expenses calculation for the 2019-2020 antidumping duty administrative review on oil country tubular goods from South Korea remains unsupported by substantial evidence after a remand, South Korean exporter Hyundai Steel said in its Sept. 12 comments to the Court of International Trade. Hyundai partially opposed the remand results despite the department's lowering of Hyundai's dumping margin, from 19.54% to 9.63% (see 2308160065) (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00138).
The Court of International Trade upheld parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce "failed to consider the necessary factors" established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit before it used partial adverse facts available against respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. due to its suppliers' noncompliance. The agency also failed to justify its decision to deduct surcharges Shanghai Tainai included as extra profit in addition to Section 301 duties when calculating U.S. price, Vaden said. However, the judge sustained Commerce's remaining positions, including its insistence that it deduct the Section 301 duties from U.S. price.
The International Trade Commission's decision to find that freight rail couplers from China and Mexico injured the domestic industry was not backed by substantial evidence, given its finding in a separate, previously conducted investigation that the couplers just from China did not injure the U.S. industry, importer Wabtec Corp. argued in a Sept. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00157).
The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote on two nominations to the Court of International Trade during its Sept. 14 executive business meeting. The two nominees are Lisa Wang, assistant secretary of commerce for enforcement and compliance at the Commerce Department, and Joseph Laroski, partner at Schagrin Associates. The pair faced questioning from the committee in July, where the senators asked about their backgrounds and how their past experiences will shape their decision-making (see 2307270043).
The Court of International Trade lacks jurisdiction to hear importer Greentech Energy Solution's claims challenging CBP's decision to assess antidumping and countervailing duties on its 2019 imports of solar modules from Vietnam, the U.S. said in a Sept. 7 motion to dismiss. The "protest procedure" at CIT and "judicial review" under Section 1581(a) are not "manifestly inadequate" to review Greentech's claims, barring review under Section 1581(i), the government said (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).