Tire exporter Bridgestone, seeking judgment in its case challenging use of total adverse facts available in a Thai tires antidumping duty investigation, said Sept. 5 that the Commerce Department “repeatedly denied” the existence of provably reliable documents Bridgestone provided it at verification and then made “questionable representations” to the Court of International Trade (see 2503200048) (Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations v. United States, CIT # 24-00263).
Antidumping duty respondent Jiangxi Brother Pharmaceutical on Sept. 11 filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on vanillin from China. The respondent challenged Commerce's "calculation of the surrogate value for the by-product Hydroquinone," selection of the financial statements used as the basis for the financial ratios used in the surrogate value calculation, and the use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping (Jiangxi Brother Pharmaceutical Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00187).
The Court of International Trade sustained CBP's finding that importer Scioto Valley Woodworking evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China, in a confidential decision issued Sept. 12. Judge Lisa Wang said the evasion finding, which CBP flipped on remand, is supported by "substantial evidence and complies with the court's instructions" (American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance v. United States, CIT # 23-00140).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 11 sustained the Commerce Department's 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, after the agency added a second respondent on remand and reconsidered certain benchmark calculations. Judge Timothy Reif said that no party objected to Commerce's remand results (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03885).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 15 sustained the Commerce Department's surrogate value pick for antidumping respondent Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry's plywood input in the 2019-21 review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from China after three prior remands. After Commerce repeatedly stuck by its decision to adjust Brazilian plywood data to remove data from Spain, the agency changed course in its third remand results, deciding to use "historical data for Brazilian plywood imports and period of review import data from Malaysia." No party challenged the result.
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 15 upheld the Commerce Department's decision not to collapse antidumping duty respondent Dalmine with its affiliated input supplier Silcotub in the 2021-22 administrative review of the AD order on mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Italy. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce properly followed the relevant statute in finding that Silcotub, a Romania-based company, can't be collapsed with Dalmine, since Silcotub isn't a producer of subject merchandise. The judge said that Commerce didn't impermissibly rely on this rationale post hoc, since it's an issue of "statutory construction," which is exempted from the bar against post hoc rationalizations.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Sept. 12 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Exporter Zhejiang Dingli Machinery challenged the Commerce Department's decisions made on remand to use Maersk data to value ocean freight and value minor fabricated components using Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8431.20.90 data. Filing a response to the agency's remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on mobile access equipment from China, Dingli said the Maersk price quotes are unreliable and that the agency strayed from its normal practice in picking the data for subheading 8431.20.90 (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. United States, CIT # 22-00152).
The U.S. defended Sept. 9 the Commerce Department’s flipped position, on a second remand, regarding the application of antidumping and countervailing duties to exporter Elysium Tiles’ composite tiles (Elysium Tiles v. United States, CIT # 23-00041).