The Commerce Department properly reversed its reliance on adverse facts available in an antidumping duty review, lowering the dumping rate for respondent BlueScope Steel from 99.20% to 4.95%, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Aug. 30 opinion. Commerce dropped the use of AFA from the review after issuing a supplemental questionnaire to BlueScope to get U.S. sales quantity and value reporting data from the respondent.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Aug. 29, following its ruling that the Commerce Department can use total adverse facts available to calculate the all-others rate in an antidumping duty review on steel nails from China. The appellate court said that while the law bars the use of total AFA when calculating the all-others rate in AD investigations, it makes no mention of AD reviews, so the question is deferred to Commerce (see 2207060027). The appellate court said Commerce was right to use partial AFA on respondent Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products due to its main supplier's transshipment scheme (Shanxi Hairui Trade Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2067).
The Commerce Department violated the law by hitting mandatory antidumping review respondent Grupo Simec with a total adverse facts available rate of 66.70%, non-selected respondent Grupo Acerero argued in an Aug. 26 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The total AFA rate was disproportionate since Grupo Simec put forth "significant effort" in responding to Commerce's questionnaires, the brief said. Grupo Acerero further railed against its own 33.35% rate that was found by simply averaging the total AFA rate and a zero percent rate given to the other mandatory respondent (Grupo Acerero v. U.S., CIT #22-00230).
The Commerce Department erred in applying adverse facts available to countervailing duty review respondent Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co. (GRT), the respondent argued in an Aug. 25 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The case concerns the 2020 review of the CVD order on truck and bus tires from China. Commerce hit GRT with a 1.78% AFA rate over the respondent's supposed use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program -- a position that has repeatedly been struck down by the trade court. After the review, GRT filed its two-count complaint to argue that Commerce erred in using AFA over the EBCP and that "upon information and belief, Commerce erred in other aspects of its Final Results with respect to GRT and the EBC program that will be evident upon review of the administrative record in this case" (Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00229).
Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case, led by Ellwood City Forge Co., aren't seeking to relitigate the issue of whether the Commerce Department should have conducted on-site verification during its administrative review but merely trying to frame a newly available piece of evidence, the plaintiffs argued in an Aug. 25 brief. Responding to arguments from the U.S. and exporter Metalcam, the plaintiffs said it's the U.S. and Metalcam that are seeking to relitigate issues, particularly the point of whether the plaintiffs raised the issue administratively (Ellwood City Forge v. United States, CIT #21-00073).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Aug. 26 opinion rejected the plaintiff-appellants' appeal seeking to establish that the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value. The appellate court previously rejected this claim in Hyundai Steel v. U.S. The appellants, led by American Cast Iron Pipe Company, sought to differentiate its case from Hyundai Steel by arguing that its case appeals an original investigation while the Hyundai Steel matter challenged an administrative review. The Federal Circuit failed to see how this would result in a different outcome and ruled against Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
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 in a broad challenge to the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs after denying a petition for a full court rehearing. The appellate court previously dismissed the case, led by USP Holdings, in June, unconvinced of the importers' arguments that the Commerce Department in its underlying report was required to find an imminent threat to domestic industry and did not do so (see 2206090047). The appellants filed for the rehearing, citing the Supreme Court's recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA, arguing that the authority to regulate international trade is a "major question" that requires explicit delegation from Congress (see 2207220071) (USP Holdings v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1726).
The Court of International Trade failed to recognize that key facts in a customs fraud case are not in dispute, but if it had, the court "would likely have" come to a different conclusion over when the statute of limitations had run out for the U.S. to bring its case, defendants Greenlight Organic and Parambir Singh Aulakh argued. Filing a motion for rehearing Aug. 25, the defendants said the trade court committed an error when finding that a piece of evidence has to establish fraud for the statute of limitations to begin to run and not merely give allegations of misconduct to the government (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT #17-00031).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 24 text-only order granted a partial consent motion to consolidate two cases, one of which is a consolidated action brought by two importers, challenging a CBP Enforce and Protect Act investigation. The cases concern CBP's finding that American Pacific Plywood, Far East American, Liberty Woods International and InterGlobal Forest evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China by transshipping the goods through Vietnam. The complaints include counts against CBP's alleged due process violations and determination that all the imports were covered merchandise (see 2207200031). Earlier in August, the court consolidated the Far East and American Pacific Plywood cases. The U.S. then moved to consolidate the Far East and InterGlobal cases, arguing that it would promote judicial efficiency (see 2208230026). The cases were assigned to Judge Mark Barnett (Far East American v. U.S., CIT #22-00213).