The Commerce Department has “never specified the scope, content or format” of a certification that a company’s U.S. customers didn't benefit from China’s Export Buyer’s Credit Program, so the agency shouldn't have immediately applied adverse facts available to a Chinese exporter because its non-use certification didn’t fulfill its requirements, the exporter, Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber (GRT), said in a reply brief filed with the Court of International Trade July 21 (Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00229).
CBP violated importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's due process rights by failing to provide it access to business confidential information (BCI) in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion proceeding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a highly anticipated opinion on July 27.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a July 26 order granted a stay in two cases challenging the expansion of the Section 232 steel and aluminum duties on derivative products until 30 days after importer PrimeSource Building Products' appeal to the Supreme Court of the U.S. is resolved. PrimeSource indicated it was appealing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling upholding the tariff expansion to the Supreme Court earlier this month (see 2307240022). The two cases newly stayed by the trade court were brought by importers J. Conrad and Metropolitan Staple Corp. Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves, M. Miller Baker and Timothy Stanceu said their proceedings will be stayed until PrimeSource's suit "becomes final, including all appeals and remand proceedings" (J. Conrad Ltd v. United States, CIT # 20-00052) (Metropolitan Staple Corp. v. United States, CIT # 20-00053).
The Commerce Department, on remand at the Court of International Trade, incorporated information from antidumping duty respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. regarding its service-related revenues and expenses, slashing the exporter's dumping rate from 16.13% to 4.69%. Commerce solicited this information from the company after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit told the agency to let Hyundai supplement the record (Hitachi Energy USA v. U.S., CIT # 16-00054).
The Commerce Department improperly used Cohen's d test to root out masked dumping because the agency violated statistical assmptions inherent to the test, SeAH Steel told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the opening brief of its appeal. While Commerce justified its use of the test because it used a whole population, not a sample, SeAH said the academic literature shows the d test was meant to be used as a measure of effect size only when the data comes from samples with "normal distributions, with roughly equal variance, and a sufficient number of data-points" (Stupp Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).
Former Court of International Trade Judge Richard Goldberg of Lake Melissa, North Dakota, died July 18, according to the court. He was 95. Following a stint as assistant state's attorney for Cass County, North Dakota, Goldberg was commissioned into the U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General Corps, then worked as an attorney for the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, D.C., before returning to Fargo to run his family's grain business until it was sold to Anheuser-Busch in 1983. Goldberg was elected to the state Senate in North Dakota four times. During the Ronald Reagan administration he served as deputy undersecretary for international affairs and commodity programs in the Department of Agriculture, later becoming undersecretary. President George H.W. Bush appointed him to CIT, where he served for more than three decades. Survivors include his wife, Mary, son, John, and daughter, Julie.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department can use a transaction-specific margin as an adverse facts available rate, the government argued in a July 24 reply brief at the Court of International Trade supporting its motion for reconsideration. While exporter Lumber Liquidators argued that the statute only allows a calculated dumping margin and not one based solely on a single sales transaction, the U.S. said this interpretation cuts against the law's plain language, which says that when Commerce uses AFA, it can use any margin from any segment of the proceeding (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00144).
The Court of International Trade in a July 25 order dismissed an antidumping suit brought by exporter Okechamp for failure to file a complaint within the time allotted. Okechamp brought the case to contest the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on preserved mushrooms from the Netherlands. The trade court said the case was tossed for lack or prosectuion (Okechamp v. United States, CIT # 23-00134).