The Commerce Department on Dec. 16 filed its remand redetermination in a Court of International Trade case stemming from its countervailing duty investigation on phosphate fertilizers from Russia (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00117). Commerce reconsidered its calculation of the total sales for EuroChem, its calculation of the natural gas benchmark, and its analysis of mining rights for less than adequate remuneration. Commerce revised its subsidy rate calculations for EuroChem from 47.05% to 23.77%, for PhosAgro from 9.19% to 14.3%, and the "all others" rate from 17.2% to 16.3%.
The Court of International Trade in a pair of Dec. 16 opinions upheld the Commerce Department's decisions on remand to exclude importers Worldwide Door Components' and Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. After previously remanding the decision for not being submitted in a form that was judicially reviewable, Judge Timothy Stanceu said that this time around the agency has made a scope decision "in a form the court is able to sustain."
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP's EAPA determination that Blue Pipe Steel Center evaded an antidumping duty order was incorrect because the Commerce Department has since ruled the imported line pipe outside the scope of the order, Blue Pipe said in a Dec. 14 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 21-00081).
A recent Court of International Trade decision in Goodluck India v. U.S. is relevant in a case on the Commerce Department's continued antidumping duty investigation on tomatoes from Mexico conducted after a suspension agreement was terminated, plaintiffs in another case, led by Bioparques de Occidente, claimed in a Dec. 14 notice of supplemental authority. In Goodluck, the trade court said that the U.S. cannot dismiss an alternatively pleaded ground of jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (see 2212010024). Bioparques' case presents a similar scenario, the brief said (Bioparques de Occidente v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00204).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Eight models of GoPro Hero camera housings are properly classified as camera cases under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 4202 and not parts, the government said in a Dec. 9 motion at the Court of International Trade. The brief opposed GoPro's Aug. 5 motion for summary judgment, in which the company argued the housings were duty-free parts under heading 8529 because the cameras cannot fulfill their primary hands-free function without them (see 2208080041). DOJ has asked the court to deny GoPro's motion and grant its own, which would dismiss the case (GoPro v. United States, CIT #20-00176).
Each one of the Commerce Department's four findings challenged in a countervailing duty case challenge is legal and should be sustained, the U.S. argued in a Dec. 9 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government claimed Commerce's decision not to rely on respondent Marmen Energie's auditor's adjustment was reasonable; the agency reasonably found the additional depreciation for various Class 1 assets conferred a countervailable benefit to Marmen; Commerce's calculation of Marmen's benefit for a tax credit program legally did not include the income tax effects of benefits under the program for past years; and the agency reasonably said that Quebec's on-the-job tax credit program is de facto specific (Quebec v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1807).
The use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty investigation against one party based on data submitted by another party is illegal, Brazilian honey producer Supermel argued in a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The Commerce Department did not have the legal authority to ask Supermel to verify its data against information submitted by an unaffiliated beekeeper, even though Supermel's data was "in fact, reliable and verified," the brief said (Apiario Diamente Comercial Exportadora v. United States, CIT #22-00185).