The Commerce Department legally used antidumping duty respondent Dillinger France's normal books and records as facts otherwise available by reallocating production costs between prime and non-prime plate in the AD investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from France, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Aug. 15 opinion.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade issued an order last week halting liquidation of imported wooden cabinets and vanities from China that were the subject of an Enforce and Protect Act investigation into possible evasion by importer Scioto Valley Woodworking (American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance v. U.S., CIT # 23-00140).
The Commerce Department ignored a Court of International Trade remand order to reconsider the use of adverse facts against antidumping duty respondent Meihua and restated arguments on remand that the CIT had already rejected (see 2306280043), Meihua said in its Aug. 11 remand comments at CIT. Consolidated plaintiffs Deosen Biochemical and Jianlong Biotechnology raised separate issues with the remand in their own comments (Meihua Group International (Hong Kong) v. U.S., CIT # 22-00069).
The Court of International Trade lacks the authority to prevent CBP from collecting Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from importer PrimeSource Building Products given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling upholding the duties, the government argued in a recent brief. Responding to PrimeSource's request for a stay of the appellate court's mandate pending its appeal of the suit to the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. said the Federal Circuit's mandate "could not be clearer": President Donald Trump's expansion of the duties to cover steel and aluminum "derivatives" is lawful and CBP's collection of the duties proper (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., CIT # 20-00032).
CBP miscalculated antidumping duty payments on imported crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwain, ignored prior disclosure payments by importer URE NSP, and then partially denied a protest seeking those refunds, said URE NSP in an Aug. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade (URE NSP Corporation v. U.S. CBP, CIT # 23-00154). The company asked the court to order a refund of about $311,00 plus interest for overpayment of duties.
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 15 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping case in which the agency continued to rely on respondent Dillinger France's normal books and records as facts otherwise available to fill in missing cost of production data for prime and non-prime plate. Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce's reliance on the exporter's normal books and records as facts otherwise available was not contrary to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in this case, despite that court finding the respondent's normal books did not reasonably reflect the costs linked with the production of other merchandise. Katzmann said evidence shows that "more than a mere scintilla" supports Dillinger's normal books and records as being "probative" of the missing cost information.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department acted contrary to law and remand instructions by the Court of International Trade when it continued to use adverse facts against Risen Energy for its alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP), Risen argued in Aug. 11 remand comments. The exporter accused Commerce of using "delay tactics" by continuously refusing to verify the non-use of the EBCP by Risen's customers after multiple remands and the vast majority of Risen's customers complying with Commerce despite burdensome verifications (Risen Energy v. U.S., CIT # 20-03912).
The Commerce Department illegally expanded the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on truck wheels from China to include truck wheels made in a third country using either Chinese-origin rims or Chinese-origin discs, but not both, exporter Asia Wheel Co., Ltd., said in an Aug. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Since Asia Wheel makes truck wheels using only Chinese-origin discs, the agency illegally included these goods under the scope of the orders, the company argued (Asia Wheel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00143).