A group of Chinese exporters filed two complaints at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's final results in the 2020 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from China. The parties object to Commerce's use of adverse facts available over the alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP) and the benchmark for the sale of primary aluminum for less than adequate remuneration (Yinbang Clad Material Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00291) (Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00290).
CBP did not do what it told the Court of International Trade it was going to do on remand in an Enforce and Protect Act case, plaintiffs Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co. argued in Nov. 4 comments on CBP's remand. The agency told the court it would consider the Commerce Department's scope ruling, which found that Ikadan and Gaosai's imports are within the scope of the relevant antidumping and countervailing duty orders, and clarify its decision to ensure the court is given a thorough analysis of the relevant law and evidence. Instead, CBP failed to address any of the plaintiffs' arguments on remand, the brief said (Ikadan System USA v. United States, CIT #21-00592).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade dismissed four tariff classification cases brought by importer Continental Automotive Systems, in a Nov. 3 order. The actions concerned the classification of nitrous oxide sensors or exhaust sensors. CBP classified the merchandise under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9027.10.20 (1.2% in 2016, 0.8% in 2017). Continental said it instead should have been classified under subheading 9026.80.20, free of duty. Continental filed the stipulation of dismissal without explanation as to why the cases were tossed (Continental Automotive Systems v. United States, CIT #s 17-00106, 17-00263, 18-00096, 18-00237).
Plaintiff AA Metals cannot prove that its Chinese-origin aluminum coils are outside the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China, petitioner Texarkana Aluminum argued in a Nov. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade in an Enforce and Protect Act case. The plaintiff "does not -- and cannot -- dispute" the finding that the physical dimensions of its product match the description laid out in the orders' scope, the brief said (AA Metals v. United States, CIT #22-00051).
Antidumping duty petitioners' "notice of supplemental authority" in a case over whether Amsted Rail Co.'s former counsel violated ethical rules in an injury proceeding is neither supplemental nor an authority, plaintiffs in the matter, led by ARC, argued in a Nov. 3 reply brief. The supplemental authority, which included a declaration from Georgetown University Law Center ethics professor Michael Frisch and accused the plaintiffs of abusing the litigation system, could have been filed "contemporaneous with the [petitioner's] motion to vacate the temporary restraining order," and it is not an authority since "it is not a statute, regulation, or decisional law," the motion said (Amsted Rail v. ITC , CIT #22-00307).
Selective Cushioning Units (SCUs) are products of Mexico due to their complex assembly, not products of China subject to Section 301 duties, Strato argued in a Nov. 3 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Strato, Inc., v. U.S., CIT #22-00315).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. and the relevant antidumping duty petitioner "fail to understand or simply ignore" key Court of International Trade precedent which says that the Commerce Department has to look at the factual distinction between scenarios where Chinese government-controlled companies had a majority interest in the respondent and where they had a minority interest, Pirelli Tyre Co. argued in a Nov. 3 reply brief. Telling the trade court that Commerce's decision to deny Pirelli separate rate status was both illegal and unsupported by substantial evidence, the exporter argued that both the U.S. and the AD petitioner also failed to understand past precedent establishing that Commerce's "beholden theory" must be linked to specific evidence (Pirelli Tyre v. United States, CIT #20-00115).
Exporter Jin Tiong Materials Manufacturer was not required to submit a separate rate application or separate rate certification to establish its eligibility for a separate rate in an antidumping duty review, plaintiffs Jin Tiong and Repwire argued in a Nov. 2 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The exporters dubbed the issue "not complicated," arguing that while Jin Tiong did not submit a separate rate application, Section A of the standard questionnaire in non-market economy cases requests the same information. As a result, Commerce properly issued a questionnaire to Jin Tiong but illegally withdrew it before the exporter was able to submit its responses (Repwire v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00016).