The Court of International Trade should affirm Commerce Department margin calculations for Mexican exporters Simec, Acerero and Sidertul in the 2019-20 antidumping duty administrative review on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico, the Rebar Trade Action Coalition (RTAC) said in its July 10 motion at the Court of International Trade (Grupo Simec v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00202).
The Commerce Department was not required to credit countervailing duty respondent Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum's claims of non-use of the Export Buyer’s Credit Program (EBCP) and correctly applied adverse facts available, DOJ said in a July 10 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The brief came in reply to Alcha's April motion for judgment, in which it contested the agency's methodology during the administrative review of a countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from China (see 2304170048) (Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00290).
The False Claims Act's scienter element, which says a person must have "knowingly" made false statements, refers to a defendant's knowledge and subjective beliefs and not to what an objectively reasonable person may have known or believed, the U.S. said in an amicus brief invited by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Citing recent Supreme Court precedent from U.S. ex rel. Schute v. SuperValu, the U.S. said the appeals court should reject importer Sigma Corp.'s arguments to the contrary in a case on whether the company violated the False Claims Act by filing false customs forms to evade antidumping duties (Island Industries v. Sigma Corp., 9th Cir. # 22-55063).
The U.S. and importer Pacific World reached a settlement regarding the classification of artificial nails, Michael Roll, counsel for the importer, confirmed to Trade Law Daily. The settlement led to the dismissal of 15 cases at the Court of International Trade that were suspended pending resolution of a test case, also brought by Pacific World, which was resolved in 2016.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a case on the 2014-15 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit said that a company unable to prove it has entries for the purposes of being granted a separate AD rate should not automatically be rescinded from the review (see 2305190060). While the court found unconvincing the government's claim that it is not required to rescind a review for a company with no entries, the judges did rule that exporter Ningbo Qixin did not establish that it had no shipments, even though the agency rejected a separate rate for the company since it couldn't verify any entries (Canadian Solar International v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 20-2162).
A horizontal lawnmower engine should not have been included under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on vertical shaft engines between 99cc and up to 225cc from China in a Commerce Department scope ruling simply because it is used in walk-behind mowers, exporter Zhejiang Amerisun Technology said in a July 7 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Zhejiang Amerisun Technology v. U.S., CIT # 23-00011).
The Commerce Department's decision to countervail glass subsidies on remand improperly relied on post hoc rationalization, plaintiff-appellant Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering said during July 10 oral arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2000).
The Court of International Trade on July 7 remanded a case contesting an antidumping duty administrative review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The still-confidential order from Judge M. Miller Baker directs Commerce to reconsider its surrogate country selection process and to consider countries at a “comparable level of economic development” as potential surrogates on an equal basis with countries Commerce deems to be at “the same level of economic development” (Catfish Farmers of America, et al. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00380).
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.