The Commerce Department's admission that the administrative case brief in an antidumping duty matter wasn't the right time to bring up arguments over verification procedures reveals the futility of raising verification concerns administratively, plaintiffs led by Ellwood City Forge argued to fight off claims that it failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. Submitting a notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade, Ellwood said Commerce's remand results in a separate AD case declaring that 63 days was "far too late" to pursue a request for virtual verification in lieu of on-site verification due to COVID-19 restrictions indicates that raising the issue of virtual verification in the petitioner's case was futile (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00077).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government provided a countervailable subsidy via the provision of carbon emission permits to exporter Hyundai Steel violates the law, Hyundai argued in a July 5 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Since the requirement to buy carbon emission permits places a cost on the company, and the Korean government didn't forgo revenue by providing an additional permit allocation to Hyundai, the provision of the permits doesn't constitute a countervailable benefit, the complaint said (Hyundai Steel v. U.S., CIT #22-00170).
The Commerce Department erred by selecting Brazil as the primary surrogate country in an antidumping duty review then using log input data from Malaysia, exporter Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. said in a July 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Senmao also contested Commerce's decision to deny the exporter a byproduct offset, revise the Brazilian surrogate value data for plywood and select Brazil as the primary surrogate while rejecting its log data, adjusting the plywood data and revising the financial ratios (Jiangsu Senmoa Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00190).
The Commerce Department submitted its remand results July 5 in an antidumping duty review challenge originally brought by Risen Energy Co. at the Court of International Trade. Commerce switched its positions on applying adverse facts available over unreported factors of production data -- reverting to neutral facts available -- and on how to value silver paste using Malaysian surrogate data. The agency stuck by its positions, though, on how to value backsheets and ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) using surrogate data. The latter two positions remain contested by the plaintiffs, but they consented to Commerce's switch on the FOP data and silver paste (Risen Energy Co., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03743).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP improperly classified wearable blankets in contravention of its own guidance, said Cozy Comfort in a June 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Cozy Comfort v. U.S., #22-00173). The agency's rate advance ran counter to its own guidance that sherpa-lined garments are not classifiable in heading 6110.
A host of U.S. mattress producers and trade unions argued in a July 1 brief that the International Trade Commission's final affirmative injury determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on imported mattresses should be upheld at the Court of International Trade.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 6 order granted the unopposed motion from defendant-appellants, led by Atlas Tube, to dismiss the consolidated appeals of an antidumping duty case (Dong-A Steel v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2153). The case concerned whether the Commerce Department had the authority to grant a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value in an AD proceeding. The key Hyundai Steel case at the Federal Circuit established that the agency didn't have that authority.
The Court of International Trade in a July 6 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision to grant a level-of-trade (LOT) adjustment for antidumping duty respondent Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. (Prolamsa). Judge Timothy Stanceu sustained the LOT adjustment that Commerce made following the judge's initial remand order. The court ruled that petitioner Nucor Tubular Products' arguments that the higher selling expenses for one avenue of Prolamsa's trade were due to higher manufacturing costs and not higher selling expenses were "entirely speculative, if not illogical."