The Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available on countervailing duty respondent Risen Energy Co. for the Chinese government's failure to cooperate regarding the Export Buyer's Credit Program "fails to properly understand the Court precedent on this matter," Risen argued. Submitting a reply brief on July 26 at the Court of International Trade, the exporter said that while the U.S. "may be correct" that using AFA on a cooperative respondent due to the Chinese government's failure to cooperate may be legal, the court has cautioned Commerce "to mitigate the impact on the cooperating party" (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S. CIT # 22-00231).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in a July opinion, reversed a California district court's decision acquitting Yi-Chi Shih, an employee at China-based firm Chengdu RML, of conspiracy to violate export control laws via his export of semiconductors to China. Judges Andrew Hurwitz and Ryan Nelson said "a rational factfinder could find that the exported [monolithic microwave integrated circuits] were not exempt from the [Export Administration Regulations] as fundamental research."
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).
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 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).
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.