Commerce erred in its calculations of countervailable subsidies in an administrative review on multilayered wood flooring from China, which led to a higher rate for non-individually reviewed average rate respondents, Zhejiang Dadongwu Greenhome Wood said in an Aug. 9 complaint filed to the Court of International Trade. In the review, Commerce calculated countervailable subsidy rates for the two mandatory respondents -- 12.74% and 3.36% -- and 9.85% for non-selected companies, including GreenHome. GreenHome said that Commerce incorrectly calculated the subsidy rates during the review and has asked the court to remand the case to Commerce for a redetermination.
Minor issues in reporting home market sales in an antidumping duty administrative review don’t rise to the level that would justify an adverse facts available margin for an exporter’s large power transformers from South Korea, nor does the exporter’s purported lack of cooperation in a previous year’s administrative review give Commerce leeway to apply AFA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Aug. 11.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should not grant a rehearing petition to Hitachi in an antidumping duty case, argue both the U.S. government and defendant-appellant Hyundai in two separate Aug. 9 responses at CAFC (Hitachi Energy USA v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #20-2114).
Plaintiffs in three similar cases challenging CBP’s denial of delinquency interest on collected antidumping and countervailing duties under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to three notices of appeal filed Aug. 5. The Court of International Trade ruled in June that CBP properly denied the payments, relying on CBP’s interpretation of how to administer CDSOA and define how interest is earned on AD/CVD given ambiguities in the statute pertaining to delinquency interest (see 2206160074). Among the appellants are Monterey Mushrooms, Hilex Poly and American Drew.
The Commerce Department erred in its calculations when determining the cost of honey during an antidumping duty investigation, AD duty petitioners American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association said in an August 5 complaint at the Court of International Trade (American Honey Producers Association v. United States, CIT #22-00195).
The Commerce Department made multiple errors in its treatment of Grupo Simec during an antidumping duty review on steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from Mexico, including the incorrect application of adverse facts available to respondent Simec, Simec said in an Aug. 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Grupo Simec, et. al. v. United States, CIT #22-00202).
The Commerce Department erred in its calculations of production costs during an antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Argentina, exporter Nexco said in an August 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Nexco, S.A. v. U.S., CIT #22-00203).
The Court of International Trade will close out a controversial case involving allegations of antidumping and countervailing duty evasion by a Dominican exporter in that Dominican exporter’s favor, granting on Aug. 8 a motion to enter judgment sustaining CBP’s reversal of an evasion finding for Kingtom Aluminio in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation. Kingtom, several importers and the U.S. government had filed a joint motion requesting CBP’s remand results be sustained (see 2206230037).
While plaintiffs in a solar cell antidumping review case were satisfied with the Commerce Department's switch from adverse facts available and how it values silver paste on remand, they still contest the agency's positions on how to value backsheets and ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) using surrogate data. In comments to the Court of International Trade, the plaintiffs, led by Risen Energy, argued the Commerce's bid to further defend its valuation of backsheet and EVA inputs is unsupported by substantial evidence (Risen Energy v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-03743).