CBP's remand results in an antiumping and countervailing duty evasion case should be sent back again since the agency "failed to provide any reasoned explanation for its treatment of confidential information or for the public summarization of such information," plaintiff Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee said in a Jan. 3 brief at the Court of International Trade (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee v. United States, CIT # 21-00129).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 29 order granted the U.S. motion for leave to file a motion to dismiss an Enforce and Protect Act appeal to the extent the motion must be filed within 14 days. The U.S. asked for leave to file the motion seeing as all the entries at issue have been liquidated (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1226).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 30 order gave plaintiff-appellants in a countervailing duty case a two-week extension to file their opening brief, setting the due date at Jan. 17. The appellants, Tau-Ken Temir, Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration, and Tau-Ken Samruk, requested the extension -- the second of its kind for the opening brief -- since their counsel, Peter Koenig of Squire Patton, got hit with "two new unanticipated large questionnaire responses due at the" Commerce Department and "two new briefs due at" CIT since the first extension request. Koenig said more time is needed to coordinate a single brief among the three appellants, especially given that one is a foreign government agency (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
The Commerce Department illegally ignored its established practice of not reviewing the countervailability of a program in the absence of new information and its "consistent finding" in all past countervailing duty reviews that no benefit was provided from respondent KG Dongbu Steel Co.'s first three debt-equity swaps, Dongbu argued in a Dec. 27 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00047).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should reject a motion for a preliminary injunction against cash deposits in an antidumping duty case since the plaintiffs "provide no probative evidence" for the accuracy of the claims in the declarations submitted in support for the claim of irreparable harm, the U.S. argued in a Dec. 28 reply brief. Further, the plaintiffs overstate their case on the merits and overlook parts of the record that cut against its position, the government said (Grupo Acerero v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00202).
CBP is empowered to make its own scope determinations when evaluating antidumping and countervailing duty evasions, and the Court of International Trade should therefore sustain a determination made by CBP regarding steel grating from China, the government argued in a Dec. 23 brief at the Court of International Trade. The government response comes eight months after a motion for judgment filed by importer Ikadan System USA and manufacturer Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co. (see 2204260079) because of a voluntary remand (Ikadan System USA v. United States, CIT # 21-00592).
The Commerce Department violated the law by changing the date of sale for antidumping respondent Octal's U.S. sales from the dates reported by the exporter, the company argued in a Dec. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce should have used the date when the relevant price index was published, as reported by the respondent, rather than the invoice date for the date of sale. The result of the switch was a 3.96% dumping margin for the exporter (Octal v. U.S., CIT # 22-00352).
A recent Court of International Trade opinion on the use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty case "addresses nearly identical facts" as in an AD case brought by plaintiffs Meihua Group International Trading and Xinjiang Meihua Amina Acid Co. (Meihua), the plaintiffs said in a Dec. 22 notice of supplemental authority. The recent CIT case, Saha Thai Steel Pipe v. U.S., saw the court rule that the Commerce Department improperly used AFA since the agency failed to notify the respondent about the supposed deficiencies in its submissions (see 2212020060) (Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00069).