The standard for whether a surrogate financial statement is considered publicly available so it can be used in an antidumping duty proceeding says that "interested parties may independently access the information," the government said in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Ashley Furniture Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00283).
None of the Court of International Trade's conclusions upholding the use of the Cohen's d test to root out "masked" dumping address the Commerce Department's "core error" of using a 0.8 threshold "when the statistical assumptions of normality, variance, and size have not been proven," thermal paper exporters led by Koehler Paper argued. In a reply brief at the trade court, Koehler said CIT's recent decisions in Stupp Corp. v. U.S. and Marmen v. U.S. "do nothing to mitigate the fundamental flaws" of using the d test (Koehler Paper, et al. v. United States, CIT # 21-00632).
An enriched ammonium sulfate isotope was incorrectly ruled as being within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ammonium sulfate from China, Cambridge Isotope Laboratories argued in an April 28 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Cambridge sued to contest a final scope ruling, issued March 16, which held that NLM-713-10, which consists of an enriched 15N ammonium sulfate isotope, fell within the scope of the orders on ammonium sulfate from China (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. U.S., CIT # 23-00080).
A Mexican rebar exporter says its history of marginal dumping rates and cooperation with Commerce Department proceedings means that the 66.7% adverse facts available rate Commerce assigned it in an antidumping duty administrative review could not reasonably reflect any possible dumping, the exporter, Simec, argued in an April 26 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Grupo Simec, et al. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00202).
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on utility scale wind towers from Vietnam, in a confidential opinion. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Timothy Reif gave the parties until May 4 to review the confidential information in the opinion. The trade court previously remanded the case so that Commerce could address evidence in the alleged manipulation of the denominators used in the benefit calculation and to substantiate its conclusion that respondent CS Wind Vietnam didn't import its steel plate, thereby neglecting an import duty exemption subsidy. On remand, the agency said CS Wind Vietnam did not manipulate its margin (see 2210210040) (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, CIT # 20-03692).
The Commerce Department legally found that financial statements submitted by antidumping duty petitioners from Indian mattress maker Emirates Sleep were publicly available, the petitioners, led by Brooklyn Bedding, argued in comments backing Commerce's remand results at the Court of International Trade. While the trade court found that the agency did not adequately explain whether the statements were publicly available, Commerce properly explained on remand that they were via the Indian government's Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Zauba Corp., a web service that takes information on Indian businesses that is all a matter of public record, Brooklyn Bedding said (Ashley Furniture Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00283).
The Commerce Department erred in its selection of surrogate values and data sets in an antidumping duty investigation on mobile access equipment and subassemblies from China, the Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment said in a reply brief filed April 25 at the Court of International Trade. The court should remand the final determination in the AD investigation to Commerce, the coalition argued (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. U.S., CIT # 22-00152).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should refuse to consolidate a challenge to the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury finding on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia with a challenge to the commission's negative injury determination on the same goods from Brazil, the U.S. argued. The government claimed that there are no overlapping issues in the proceedings and that "consolidation would complicate briefing as well as the Court's review of the determinations." The Australia and Brazil cases challenge different determinations, so the present dispute is not the same as respondents and petitioners making opposing arguments on the same Commerce Department dumping margin, the U.S. said. The government was joined in its opposition to consolidation by U.S. steel companies Cleveland-Cliffs, Nucor Corp., Steel Dynamics, SSAB Enterprises and U.S. Steel Corp. (BlueScope Steel v. United States, CIT # 22-00353).
The Commerce Department reasonably declined to investigate alleged off-peak sales of electricity and correctly decided not to treat an affiliate as a cross-owned input supplier in a countervailing duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea, DOJ argued April 24 at the Court of International Trade (Nucor v. U.S., CIT # 21-00182).