The fact that the Commerce Department verified non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in two administrative proceedings speaks to the validity of its verification process, the U.S. said in a Sept. 28 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Asking the trade court to uphold its use of adverse facts available for countervailing duty respondents' failure to submit full questionnaire responses issued on remand over the EBCP, the government argued that the fact that it verified non-use administratively in other cases shows the need for the requested information (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00110).
Exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer failed to timely submit a separate rate application by the applicable deadline, making it ineligible to rebut the presumption of Chinese government control and get a separate rate, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 28 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Jin Tiong is not absolved from having missed the deadline by a wrongly filed, then later rescinded, questionnaire sent to the exporter by the Commerce Department, the brief said (Repwire v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00016).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should find that the Commerce Department's scope ruling pertaining to importer Fasteners for Retail, doing business as Siffron, was not legal, antidumping duty petitioner Magnum Magnetics argued in a Sept. 28 complaint. The scope ruling that excluded Siffron's goods from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on raw flexible magnets from China "is unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise not in accordance with law," the brief said. Commerce found that Siffron's plastic shelf dividers, consisting of a "raw flexible magnet that is bonded with an adhesive to the base of a plastic sheet that is generally T- or L-shaped," are excluded from the scope of the order (Magnum Magnetics v. United States, CIT #22-00254).
The Commerce Department cannot use one antidumping respondent's third-country sales to calculate another's constructed value profit, selling expenses and constructed export price profit since the second respondent has no means to review the underlying data to gauge its accuracy, plaintiff Hyundai Steel Company argued in a brief at the Court of International Trade. The record had many alternative sources for calculating these elements, including sources Commerce had used in the past for calculating CV profit, selling expenses and CEP profit, the brief said (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00138).
The Commerce Department properly used adverse facts available after finding that antidumping duty respondent Kumar Industries failed to provide key information on its affiliation status, instead supplying conflicting reports on whether one of its partners received income from two unnamed companies, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Kumar's bid to explain the discrepancy between the conflicting information "was unpersuasive, and even if true, failed to fully address Commerce's concerns," the brief said (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00622).
The Court of International Trade should uphold the Commerce Department's application of adverse facts available for China's Export Buyer's Credit Program after the trade court in a separate case accepted the agency's explanation of why missing information from the Chinese government was needed to verify non-use, countervailing duty petitioner American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance (AKCA) argued in comments on Commerce remand results Sept. 28 (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00110).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department properly found that importers Worldwide Door Components' and Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion for the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the importers said in a pair of comments on Commerce's remand results. Submitting their arguments to the Court of International Trade, Worldwide and Columbia said that the trade court should uphold the agency's remand results excluding the thresholds from the orders (Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., CIT #19-00013).
CBP misclassified imports of dried botanicals that are painted, dyed or glittered, importer Second Nature Designs argued in a Sept. 26 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The botanicals were liquidated under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0604.90.6000, dutiable at 7%, though Second Nature believes they should be classified under subheading 0604.90.3000, free of duty, the complaint said (Second Nature Designs v. United States, CIT #18-00131).