The Commerce Department properly granted antidumping duty respondents a constructed export price offset in an AD review, the U.S. argued in a Dec. 5 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. While AD petitioner Wheatland Tube "is correct" in arguing that the party seeking the offset has the burden of establishing the amount and nature of a particular adjustment, Commerce in this case reasonably found that "due to prior practice in this proceeding of accepting comparable information and analyses as sufficient to grant a CEP offset that Commerce should continue to grant a CEP offset in this review" (Wheatland Tube v. United States, CIT #22-00160).
Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty review challenge at the Court of International Trade, led by Grupo Simec, filed their opposition on Dec. 2 to the Commerce Department's move to add a memorandum to the administrative record. The plaintiffs said the move to add the memo -- a questionnaire deficiencies analysis for AD respondent Grupo Simec -- more than four months after the record closed was illegal because the document had never been "filed, published" or otherwise sent to the parties (Grupo Simec v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00202).
The U.S. and Enforce and Protect Act petitioner Texarkana Aluminum "failed to address the determinations challenged by" plaintiff AA Metals "in any meaningful way, often ignoring or misconstruing the issues" in the case and playing a "game of gotcha," AA Metals argued in a Dec. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. In particular, the U.S. pushed "the same flawed analysis" from the Commerce Department's scope finding by arguing that certain [redacted] temper products are subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China (AA Metals v. United States, CIT #22-00051).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 2 order, denied a petition from plaintiff-appellants ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings Co. for a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in a case over whether a protest is needed to retroactively apply Section 301 duty exclusions (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Nov. 30 in an antidumping case brought by Hitachi Energy USA after it denied the plaintiff-appellee's rehearing bid. In a May opinion, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Commerce Department improperly used adverse facts available on respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. over its reporting of service-related revenue. The court said Hyundai had the right to supplement the record and that Commerce can't claim the company shirked its obligations in the review (see 2205240028). Hitachi, successor to one of the original antidumping duty petitioners in the case, filed for a rehearing. In its response, the government said that it takes no position regarding the merits of the petition itself, but does argue that the court should decline the rehearing because the appeal "does not involve a matter of exceptional importance" (see 2208100008) (Hitachi Energy USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 20-2114).
CBP erred when it assessed antidumping and countervailing duties on imported sinks and kits from Taiwan as if they had originated from China, importer and seller RH Peterson said in a Nov. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade (RH Peterson Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00099).
Plaintiffs in a conflict-of-interest suit, led by Amsted Rail Co., plan to appeal the Court of International Trade's judgment dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction regardless of the outcome of their injunction motion, the plaintiffs said in a Nov. 30 response to a court order. However, ARC said that it is "mindful" that developments in the present case against the International Trade Commission and its related action against the Commerce Department "may bear on whether an appeal should be voluntarily dismissed before or after the appeal is docketed" (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).
The Court of International Trade stayed a case from importer Hanwha Q Cells America (Hanwha) (Hanwha Q Cells America v. U.S., CIT # 22-00305), pending the resolution of a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit it says is related. The case challenges Presidential Proclamation 10101, which reimposed safeguard duties on previously excluded bifacial crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) solar panels, was issued in violation of the Trade Act of 1974. The legality of the modification proclamation is "common to other cases," Hanwha said. One of those cases is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit, Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 2022-1392, so staying the current case until those issues are resolved by the higher court promotes judicial economy, Hanwha argued. A stay presents no hardship to the government, Hanwha said. Staying the proceedings would not impact the government's ability to collect ongoing import duties and it saves DOJ from devoting resources to relitigating the same issues as it had previously in Solar Energy, it said. The court agreed, staying the matter.
The Court of International Trade in a confidential Nov. 28 opinion sent back parts and upheld parts of the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Vietnam. In a letter issued to the litigants, Judge Timothy Reif gave the parties until close of business Dec. 5 to review any confidential information to be bracketed in the opinion. In the complaint, the plaintiffs, led by Ashley Furniture Industries, challenged Commerce's reliance on Emirates Sleep Systems' financial statements in its decision to use Indian Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7320.90.90 as a surrogate value for pocket coil innerspring units and the agency's refusal to list Ashley Furniture Trading Co. and Ashley Furniture Industries as eligible for the dumping rates given to certain companies where AFTC and AFI reinvoiced the goods before import (Ashley Furniture Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00283).