The Commerce Department "ignores critical facts" in its threshold for differentiating between different pasta types in an antidumping duty review, exporter La Molisana said in a Dec. 13 reply brief brief (La Molisana v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2060).
The Court of International Trade wouldn't be able to "effectuate its judgment" without the authority to order reliquidation past the applicable 90-day time frame, the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 15 reply brief. Defending the trade court's dismissal of retail giant Target's suit against a court-ordered reliquidation of Target entries that erroneously received a favorable antidumping duty rate, the U.S. distinguished the spat from Cemex v. U.S., in which the Federal Circuit barred reliquidation (Target Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 18 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's fourth remand results in a case on the 2015-16 review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce adequately explained how its differential pricing analysis (DPA) methodology, used to root out "masked" dumping, is "reasonable." This methodology recently returned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a separate case after the appellate court previously raised questions on the use of the DPA, specifically the use of the Cohen's d test.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 18 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2019-21 review of the antidumping duty order on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. In the remand results, Commerce continued to find that exporter Dalian Hualing Wood Co.'s lone U.S. sale during the review was not a bona fide sale, subjecting the company to the 251.65% China-wide AD rate. Judge Jane Restani said Commerce's results weren't "legally inconsistent" and the agency wasn't barred by statute or its past practice from conducting a bona fide analysis.
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 14 opinion granted the government's request for a voluntary remand in a duty evasion case on hardwood plywood from China in light of two recent judicial opinions. One decision saw the Commerce Department reverse course on whether exporter Vietnam Finewood Co.'s goods are subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders, while the other said it was illegal for CBP not to give parties to Enforce and Protect Act actions access to business confidential information.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 15 dismissed importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's case challenging CBP's antidumping evasion finding against the company's cased pencil imports. Judge Mark Barnett said Royal Brush had to file a protest with CBP to allow the court to order reliquidation for its entries, which the agency illegally liquidated, so CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the case. The company imported five entries, two of which were assessed the AD duties and three of which were not.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A September Court of International Trade decision is instructive in how to consider the Commerce Department's methodology for assessing de facto specificity regarding Quebec's On-The-Job-Training tax credit in a countervailing duty proceeding, exporter Marmen Energy Co. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Government of Quebec v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1807).
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 14 opinion granted the government's request for a voluntary remand in an evasion case on hardwood plywood from China in light of two recent judicial opinions. In one, Far East American v. U.S., the Commerce Department reversed course and said that exporter Vietnam Finewood Co.'s goods are not subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders at issue. In the other, Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said CBP violated an importer's due process rights by not giving it access to confidential information in an AD/CVD evasion case.
Countervailing duty petitioner Daikin America will appeal an October Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's decision to drop its subsidy finding against exporter Gujarat Fluorochemicals concerning a 30-year land lease to one of its affiliates, Inox Wind Limited, by India's State Industrial Development Corp. The trade court said the subsidy finding couldn't be legal due to Commerce's interpretation of its regulation, which says the agency will attribute -- to the affiliates' combined sales -- subsidies received by related input suppliers whose inputs are mainly dedicated to the production of downstream merchandise. The court ruled the provision of electricity is not primarily dedicated to the production of granular polytetrafluorethylene, the subject of the CVD investigation, adding that Commerce misunderstood the production chain (see 2310160026) (Gujarat Fluorochemicals v. United States, CIT # 22-00120).