The International Trade Commission has discretion on when to cumulate imports in injury determinations, the commission said in its Oct. 19 opposition memo at the Court of International Trade. That discretion extended to the commission's decision to cumulate imports from Australia with other shipments in its sunset review of the antidumpingm duty orders on steel goods from Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, Turkey and the U.K., it said (BlueScope Steel v. U.S., CIT # 22-00353).
The Court of International Trade should partially end a case for one of two plaintiffs as its claims have already been ruled on by the court, German exporter and consolidated plaintiff Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech said in its Oct. 19 motion for partial judgment (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 17-00158).
A suit filed to contest the classification of photoresists and other chemical products should be tossed because the complaint was filed more than nine years after the denial of protests, DOJ said in an Oct. 20 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade (Tokyo Ohka Kogyo America v. U.S., CIT # 21-00371).
The Commerce Department wasn't required to issue exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer a questionnaire for purposes of giving the company a separate antidumping duty rate, the U.S. government told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Oct. 20 reply brief. The government said 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)(1) -- the statute relied on by Jin Tiong to claim that Commerce can't limit the number of respondents when the number is small -- doesn't speak to a process that Commerce must follow in carrying out its separate rate examinations (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 20 order granted the U.S. request for a remand in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case to review the implications of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In that decision, the appellate court found CBP's failure to grant Enforce and Protect Act respondents access to the confidential information in the proceeding violated their due process rights (Newtrend USA Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00347).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 23 opinion rejected importer PrimeSource Building Products' request for a stay pending its U.S. Supreme Court appeal of a decision allowing the expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products. Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves, M. Miller Baker and Timothy Stanceu refused to overturn a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision rejecting a stay request. Baker, penning a concurring opinion, said the court lacks authority to stay the Federal Circuit's judgment, but even if it did, the importer has not shown irreparable injury because the court has the authority to order reliquidation.
South Korean exporter Hyundai Steel Co. will appeal an August Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's finding the South Korean government's free provision of port usage rights at the Port of Incheon provided Hyundai with a countervailable benefit. According to the notice of appeal, Hyudai will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court said the agency reasonably found it should conduct a revenue forgone analysis instead of a less than adequate remuneration analysis since Hyundai's non-payment of port usage fees involved a type of financial contribution via forgone revenue instead of the provision of services (see 2308220031) (Hyundai Steel v. United States, CIT # 21-00536).
The Commerce Department correctly relied entirely on adverse facts available (see 2309200030) to calculate a 760% dumping rate for antidumping duty respondent Saffron Living Co. on remand, a group of petitioners, led by Brooklyn Bedding, said in their Oct. 20 remand comments at the Court of International Trade (Brooklyn Bedding v. U.S., CIT # 21-00285).
The Commerce Department correctly found that exporter KG Dongbu Steel's debt-to-equity restructurings provided a countervailable benefit, DOJ said in an Oct. 20 reply at the Court of International Trade. Dongbu is challenging the fifth countervailing duty review of corrosion-resistant steel products from Korea and took issue with Commerce's findings of a countervailable benefit to the restructurings as well as the determination that benefits from those swaps passed to Dongbu after an ownership change. The exporter also argued that Commerce incorrectly calculated long-term loan benchmarks (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00055).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 20 opinion granted exporter Midwest-CBK's motion to ditch its case on whether sales from a Canadian warehouse to U.S. customers are sales for export to the U.S. or domestic sales. Following a prior CIT ruling finding that the company's imports are sales "for exportation to the United States" and that the goods were not deemed liquidated, the case shifted to how to value the goods.