The U.S. ignored the Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo in defending its circumvention finding on exporter Canadian Solar, the solar panel exporter said in a Nov. 15 reply brief. Canadian Solar said the Commerce Department should not be shown "tremendous" deference, as claimed by the U.S., since the agency doesn't have "unbridled authority to make an affirmative finding of circumvention" (Canadian Solar International v. United States, CIT # 23-00222).
Court of International Trade activity
The Commerce Department continued to use German third-country comparison market data in the antidumping duty investigation on mushrooms from the Netherlands on remand at the Court of International Trade. Addressing the court's concern about whether exporter Prochamp's sales to Germany were actually sold in Germany, the agency said the record lets Commerce "reasonably estimate the percentage of German-language-labelled products sold to Prochamp’s largest German customer," which then may have been sold downstream in another German-speaking country "(i.e., Austria)" (Giorgio Foods v. United States, CIT # 23-00133).
The Court of International Trade defined the term "partners" under the statute regarding affiliation analyses in antidumping duty cases as "a for profit cooperative endeavor in which parties share in risk and reward."
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 14 dismissed petitioner Aloha Pencil Co.'s case challenging the Commerce Department's recission of the review of the antidumping duty order on cased pencils from China, covering entries in 2022-23. The court noted that Aloha Pencil failed to timely file a complaint. Counsel for the company didn't respond to request for comment (Aloha Pencil Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00192).
In short remand results released Nov. 14, the Commerce Department said it was removing the 5.46% Export Buyers' Credit Program rate from a solar cell exporter’s countervailing duty (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00153).
Congress gave the Commerce Department wide latitude to go after "masked" dumping, the Court of International Trade said in a decision made public Nov. 15 that upheld the agency's differential pricing analysis.
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Nov. 15 sustained parts and remanded parts of the antidumping duty investigation on lemon juice from Brazil. Judge Claire Kelly rejected the Commerce Department's definition of "partners" in sending back the agency's finding that exporter Louis Dreyfus Co. Sucos and an unnamed supplier aren't affiliated. Conducting an analysis of the affiliation statute under Loper Bright, Kelly said Congress didn't expressly give Commerce the authority to define the term "partners." The judge then defined the term as "a for profit cooperative endeavor in which parties share in risk and reward." The judge remanded the issue for Commerce to apply this definition in its affiliation analysis between Louis Dreyfus Co. and the supplier.
The U.S. corrected a representation it made during Nov. 11 oral argument about whether petitioner Bonney Forge could have attended an on-site verification of respondent Shakti Forge Industries during an antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fittings from India (Bonney Forge Corporation v. U.S., CIT #20-03837).
The Court of International Trade sustained 162 requests for Section 232 steel tariff exclusions submitted by importer California Steel Industries in a confidential decision, though the court remanded 31 separate exclusion denials. Judge M. Miller Baker said that should the Commerce Department grant any of the 31 remanded exclusion requests, it shall tell CBP "to honor them" by extending the exclusions to "otherwise-eligible entries" that had not finally liquidated by the fifth business day after the original exclusion request denials (California Steel Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00015).
Defending its motion for judgment (see 2405300059), a paint nozzle parts importer again said Nov. 13 that its products are “fabricated heat sinks made from aluminum extrusions” and that they do have specified thermal performance requirements (Wagner Spray Tech Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00241).