The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Florida Tomato Exchange, plaintiff in a case challenging an antidumping duty suspension agreement, moved to voluntarily drop its case, in an Aug. 29 motion at the Court of International Trade. The case was stayed pending resolution of another similar challenge led by Jem D. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the trade court's dismissal of the Jem D case, which included a challenge to the termination of the 2013 suspension agreement over imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico (The Florida Tomato Exchange v. United States, CIT #13-00148).
Three separate lawsuits at the Court of International Trade are challenging the results of the Commerce Department's eighth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. All three suits allege Commerce made errors in its calculations and choice of data, particularly its surrogate values, during the review.
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: