A Court of International Trade ruling that allowed the Commerce Department to use the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis to root out masked dumping (see 2302270049) should be given weight in a separate case contesting Commerce's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on thermal paper from Germany, DOJ said in a March 7 filing at the Court of International Trade. Matra Americas and intervenor Koehler Paper argued in their September motion for judgment that Commerce’s use of the d test was flawed because it fails to take into account assumptions of sample size, distribution, and variance (see 2209160055) (Matra Americas v. United States, CIT # 21-00632).
The Commerce Department correctly applied adverse facts available to Brazilian honey producer Supermel during an antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Brazil, defendant-intervenors the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association argued in a March 3 response brief at the Court of International Trade. Supermel's December motion for judgment should be tossed because the exporter failed to cooperate in the investigation and was correctly hit with AFA, the intervenors argued (Apiario Diamente Comercial Exportadora v. United States, CIT # 22-00185).
The Commerce Department failed to provide antidumping duty respondent CPW America Co. with a chance to comment on the agency's change in methodology, which resulted in a change from a zero percent dumping rate to one derived from total adverse facts available, CPW and Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry argued in a March 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. CPW said that Commerce illegally used AFA based on an "erroneous conclusion" that the respondent's reported costs were not reconciled to its normal books and records (Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry v. United States, CIT # 22-00063).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should again remand the results of a countervailing duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea to address allegations the Korean government provided off-peak electricity for less-than-adequate-remuneration, Nucor argued March 2 at the Court of International Trade. It also argued Commerce should reconsider whether to treat POSCO's affiliate, POSCO Plantec, as a cross-owned input supplier (Nucor v. U.S., CIT # 21-00182).
The Commerce Department correctly calculated production costs in its final determination in an antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Argentina, DOJ said in its March 3 response to a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Nexco v. United States, CIT # 22-00203).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 6 reactivated an appeal from U.S. Steel that had been on hold pending a bid to reconsider the underlying Court of International Trade decision (see 2211020073). CIT in February denied SeAH Steel's motion for reconsideration of its decision upholding the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis to root out "masked" dumping (SeAH Steel v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1109).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a March 3 order consolidated three actions challenging the International Trade Commission's final determination in the injury investigation on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Argentina, Mexico, Russia and South Korea and related investigations by the Commerce Department (Tenaris Bay City, et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00344). The cases, brought by Tenairs Bay City, Maverick Tube, Ipsco Tubulars, Tenaris Global Services and Siderca, argued, among other things, that the ITC improperly cumulated imports from the four countries despite evidence that Mexican and Argentinian OCTG had different uses, were sold to different users and did not compete with Russian and South Korean OCTG (see 2301180047). The plaintiffs also claimed that Commerce incorrectly evaluated industry support calculations by the antidumping and countervailing duty petitioners.
The Commerce Department this week stuck by its decision in an antidumping duty review on welded line pipe from South Korea to include losses on suspended product lines as part of antidumping duty respondent Nexteel Co.'s general and administrative (G&A) expenses, instead of as the cost of goods sold (Nexteel Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-03898).