CBP continued to find on remand that importer Skyview Cabinet USA evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. After having the case returned to the agency following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., CBP allowed Skyview to submit rebuttal factual information to confidential information it didn't originally have access to, though it ultimately came to the same conclusion (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, CIT # 22-00080).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 21 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The government said in a May 20 status update that, for a case regarding an exporter’s adverse facts available rate after COVID-19 prevented in-person verification, the Commerce Department's remand redetermination will be out by Aug. 20 (PT. Asia Pacific Fibers v. U.S., CIT #22-00007).
Importer Valeo North America told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Commerce Department violated a "foundational principle of administrative law" in concluding the company's T-series aluminum sheet was covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders. Commerce failed to follow its "well-established legal framework" in making the scope decision, neglecting its duty as an administrative agency to provide coherent, ascertainable guidance so that regulated parties may anticipate how agencies enforce their rules and regulations," Valeo said (Valeo North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1189).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said on May 20 that the Court of International Trade was wrong to impose a 50% threshold in determining whether demand for a processed agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 20 on AD/CVD proceedings:
AD petitioners Bio-Lab, Innovative Water Care and Occidental Chemical Corporation merged their challenge to an antidumping duty review on chlorinated isocyanurates from China at the Court of International Trade with a similar challenge from Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. and Heze Huayi Chemical Co. (Bio-Lab, et al. v. United States, CIT # 24-00024) (Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00026).
Drawing pencils, colored pencils and #2 pencils exported from the Philippines by School Specialty are subject to an antidumping duty order on cased pencils from China, the Commerce Department said in a May 7 scope ruling.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 20 ruled that the Court of International Trade was wrong to establish a 50% threshold when determining whether demand for an agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties. Judges Sharon Prost, William Bryson and Leonard Stark said the Commerce Department has significant leeway in determining whether substantial dependence exists. In the present case, which assessed subsidies to Spanish raw olive growers, the court affirmed Commerce's finding of substantial dependence, finding that errors in the agency's analysis of dependence were nonprejudicial to the affected Spanish ripe olive exporters.