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 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).
Counsel for steel importer California Steel Industries requested a status conference regarding a pending motion from the Commerce Department for voluntary remand in a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion case. Since the last brief in the proceeding was filed over a year ago, on June 9, 2022, California Steel called for the conference regarding the "next steps to resolve" the company's claims while being "mindful of [Judge M. Miller Baker's] busy schedule" (California Steel Industries v. U.S., CIT # 21-00015).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 11 order granted the Commerce Department's voluntary remand request in a suit on the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan. Commerce asked for the remand so it could make exporter Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. a mandatory respondent in the review to bring the proceeding into compliance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's opinion in YC Rubber Co. v. U.S. (Optima Steel International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00108).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. filed its third motion for an extension of time to file its reply brief in a suit on how to value cookware imports from Meyer Corp. Submitting the consent motion at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, DOJ lawyers said their heavy workload warranted the extension of time, which would make the brief due on Aug. 31 instead of Aug. 17. The three extensions together amount to 74 days from the brief's initial due date (Meyer Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1570).
The government filed for an unopposed remand at the Court of International Trade of a suit on the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan. The U.S. said that if the remand is granted, the Commerce Department intends "to treat Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. as a mandatory respondent in its administrative review." Counsel for plaintiff Optima Steel consented to the motion, while counsel for petitioner Nucor Corp. took no position on the motion (Optima Steel International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00108).
The Commerce Department's continued use of the Cohen's d test on remand in an antidumping duty case included data that didn't meet the test's statistical criteria, exporter SeAH Steel said in its Aug. 9 remand comments at the Court of International Trade. Commerce cherry-picked data samples out of context to support its arguments and then failed to provide an explanation of how the department's use of the d test showed a pattern of SeAH’s U.S. prices that differed significantly among purchasers, regions or periods, SeAH said. SeAH asked the court to again remand the case to Commerce for reconsideration, especially regarding the limitations on the "reasonable use of Cohen’s d test" (Nexteel Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 18-00083).