A recent Court of International Trade opinion on the use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty case "addresses nearly identical facts" as in an AD case brought by plaintiffs Meihua Group International Trading and Xinjiang Meihua Amina Acid Co. (Meihua), the plaintiffs said in a Dec. 22 notice of supplemental authority. The recent CIT case, Saha Thai Steel Pipe v. U.S., saw the court rule that the Commerce Department improperly used AFA since the agency failed to notify the respondent about the supposed deficiencies in its submissions (see 2212020060) (Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00069).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 28 dismissed an appeal from Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline over Section 232 exclusion requests. The appellants asked for the case to be dismissed after CBP dropped the Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from the entries at issue (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2097).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 28 granted exporter Oman Fasteners' motion to expedite briefing on its bid for a preliminary injunction in an antidumping duty case, after the company said the "punitive" duties would put it out of business. Judge Miller Baker was assigned to the case and quickly agreed to the ramped-up briefing schedule, ordering the government to file a reply to the PI motion by Jan. 10, 2023, and telling Oman Fasteners to file any reply by Jan. 17, 2023 (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Antidumping duty respondents HiSTeel and Dong-A-Steel failed to exhaust their administrative remedies over their claims that the Commerce Department illegally used the Cohen's d test when rooting out "masked dumping," AD petitioner Nucor Tubular Products argued in a Dec. 21 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The plaintiffs had seven weeks after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released an opinion calling the use of the test into question until the end of the deadline for factual information, yet the respondents did not add the opinion to the record (HiSteel v. U.S., CIT #22-00142).
The Court of International Trade should expedite briefing on exporter Oman Fasteners' bid for a preliminary injunction in an antidumping duty case, Oman Fasteners argued in a Dec. 26 brief, saying the "severe, ongoing, and irreparable harm" caused by a "draconian 154.33% duty rate" threatens to put the company out of business. In its unopposed motion, the AD respondent said it already has had to stop all U.S. shipments of its goods subject to the duties and unless it can "quickly resume U.S. sales, and maintain them during the pendency of this case," it will "face insolvency through default on its existing financial obligations" or suffer irreparable harm (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT #22-00348).
The Commerce Department violated the law when it used the total adverse facts available rate for two non-cooperative respondents as the all-others rate in an antidumping duty review, plaintiff-appellants led by Cheng CH International argued in a Dec. 23 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Appealing a Court of International Trade ruling upholding the rate, the appellant said the "punitive, total AFA rate" Commerce assigned the non-individually examined respondents was not based on their actual dumping margin (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2128).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should let the U.S. add a key "Deficiencies Memorandum" to the record of an antidumping duty case since the document was "intertwined" with the AD proceeding's final results, petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition argued in a Dec. 21 reply brief. Arguing the memorandum is part of the record "as a matter of law" since it was "considered by agency decision-makers," the petitioner opposed the initiative from the Grupo Simec-led plaintiffs to oppose the addition of the memo to the record (Grupo Acerero v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00202).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential Dec. 22 opinion upheld parts of and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. In a letter, Judge Richard Easton said he wishes to issue a public version of the opinion in the "near future," giving parties until Jan. 3 to review any confidential information in the opinion. The case, which has over 40 plaintiffs, concerns Commerce's decision to hit separate rate respondents with the China-wide dumping rate and to calculate a simple averaged rate instead of a weighted average margin for the separate rate respondents (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00144).