The Commerce Department erred in picking Malaysia as the main surrogate country in the 2022-23 review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China, exporter Carbon Activated Corp. argued in a Jan. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Carbon Activated said that Romania was the better choice and that Commerce's use of Malaysia surrogate values for coal tar, sub-bituminous coal, hydrochloric acid, solid sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide was unsupported by substantial evidence (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00265).
Two multilayered wood flooring exporters, Baroque Industries and Riverside Plywood, said Jan. 23 that the Commerce Department wrongly applied adverse facts available to several of Baroque’s input suppliers, determining they were under government control even though “[n]ecessary information for these eighteen suppliers was not missing from the record” (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00106).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 28 sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on wind towers from Spain, in which the agency gave the collapsed entity of Siemens Gamesa and Windar a 28.55% AD rate. Judge Timothy Stanceu said Commerce reasonably found holding company Siemens Gamesa to be a "producer or exporter" and appropriately decided to collapse Siemens Gamesa, Windar and five of Windar's subsidiaries. The judge also upheld the agency's calculation of the collapsed entity's constructed export price.
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Jan. 29 sustained in part and remanded in part the expedited countervailing duty investigation of softwood lumber products from Canada. Judge Mark Barnett sent back the Commerce Department's subsidy calculation for affiliated exporters Les Produits Forestiers D&G and Les Produits Forestiers Portbec, which the agency used to account for the differences in volumes of lumber the two companies bought from unaffiliated producers. Barnett then upheld Commerce's use of exporter Fontaine's FY 2015 tax returns to calculate the amount of the tax benefits received by the company -- a move no party contested.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Jan. 28 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following new lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Exporter Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Co. took to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 24 to challenge the Commerce Department's surrogate value for land rental prices in Vietnam in the countervailing duty investigation on frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam (Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00030).
The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's decision on remand to drop the use of total adverse facts available against exporter Apiario Diamante Comercial Exportadora, with Apiario Diamante Producao e Comercial de Mel known as Supermel, in the antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Brazil. The result saw Supermel's AD rate drop from 83.72% to 10.52%.
Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif said in a Jan. 27 opinion that the Commerce Department had abused its discretion by denying steel exporter Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co.’s submission after it was late, but still filed before the opening of the following business day.
Exporter Shanghai Tainai Bearings Co. and importer C&U Americas will appeal a Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's use of neutral facts available against Tainai in the 33rd review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. The court said Tainai's cooperation in the reviews raised questions about how "aggressively" it sought to gain the cooperation of its unaffiliated suppliers, though these questions didn't translate into the use of adverse facts available (see 2412180036). The court also upheld Commerce's practice of excluding additional revenue Tainai collected in connection with its payment of Section 301 duties from the company's U.S. price (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00038).