The Commerce Department unnecessarily backed off of its use of adverse facts and erred in a dumping margin calculation on imported steel nails from Oman in an antidumping duty review, domestic producer and defendant-intervenor Mid Continent Steel & Wire said in remand comments filed Aug. 23. Mid Continent is contesting the July 17 remand results, in which Commerce reversed its imposition of total adverse facts available on Oman Fasteners and completely removed the 154.33% AD rate for the company (see 2307170036) (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., CIT # 22-00348).
The Commerce Department failed to adequately support its position on remand to not treat ship building company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic, an affiliate of countervailing duty respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, as a cross-owned input supplier of goods primarily dedicated to the production of downstream products, CVD petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition said (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00565).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 25 opinion upheld parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves remanded Commerce's pick of Brazil as the primary surrogate nation while using data for log inputs from Malaysia and the agency's decision to revise the Brazilian surrogate value data for plywood. The judge upheld Commerce's calculation of the Brazilian financial ratios and the agency's denial of exporter Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co.'s byproduct offset.
The Commerce Department offered greater explanations of its treatment of four types of income related to the selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expense ratio for surrogate company Ayes in the antidumping duty investigation on metal lockers from China. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade Aug. 23, the agency stuck by its treatment of shipping revenue, incentive income, interest income and rental income in setting the SG&A ratio (List Industries v. U.S., CIT # 21-00521).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP's Office of Regulations & Rulings legally reversed the Trade Remedy & Law Enforcement Directorate's finding that Dominican company Kingtom Aluminio evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the U.S. argued in an Aug. 23 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The government said that OR&R lawfully decided not to apply adverse inferences against Kingtom as requested by petitioner Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. United States, CIT # 22-00236).
The government’s position in a case regarding substitution unused merchandise drawback for aircraft parts would lead to "absurd results" if upheld, presenting a "significant risk of manipulation or unintended results" arising from changes in statistical language in the tariff schedule if the court agrees with DOJ's interpretation of the drawback statute, importer Spirit Aerosystems said in an Aug. 18 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Spirit Aerosystems v. U.S., CIT # 20-00094).
The Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF) violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide any rationale for adding Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp., along with eight of its Zhuhai-based subsidiaries, to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List, the companies, led by Ninestar, argued (Ninestar Corp., et al. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 23 upheld the Commerce Department's deduction of Section 232 duties paid by Turkish exporter Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi from its U.S. price in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey. Judge Jane Restani said she saw "no reason to vary" this finding, as previously made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, regarding the government's move to raise the duties solely on Turkish goods.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: