Japanese exporter Nippon Steel argued Feb. 7 that the standard that respondents comply with antidumping and countervailing duty reviews to the best of their ability doesn’t require respondents to break their own governments’ laws (Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00533).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Feb. 12 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Jan. 29 and 30 and Feb. 11 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
Importers Struxtur and Evolutions Flooring dropped their appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the Commerce Department's use of a country-wide adverse facts available rate in calculating the antidumping duty rate for the separate rate respondents in the 2016-17 administrative review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from China. The case will continue to be litigated by importers led by Galleher Corp., which filed their opening brief last week, arguing that the use of the AFA rate punishes the separate rate respondents for respondent Sino-maple's lack of cooperation and leads to an aberrational AD rate (see 2502050023). Counsel for Struxtur and Evolutions didn't respond to a request for comment (Fuson Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1196).
In response Feb. 10 to a steel labor union’s December motion for judgment (see 2412110059), the U.S. defended a Commerce Department scope ruling that temporary-use tires weren’t subject to antidumping duties on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan, saying the union hadn’t exhausted its administrative remedies (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union v. United States, CIT # 24-00165).
The Commerce Department permissibly refused to offer exporter East Sea Seafoods Joint Stock Company separate rate status in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on catfish from Vietnam, petitioner Catfish Farmers of America argued in a Feb. 10 brief supporting Commerce's remand results. The petitioner said that while the Court of International Trade relied on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Yanghzou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. U.S. to remand the issue, legal developments since Bestpak have called into question the relevance of the decision (Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company v. United States, CIT # 22-00092).
Indian exporter Jindal Poly Films said Feb. 10 that the government was wrong to claim that an employee’s “severe illness” wasn’t a “medical emergency” that justified an untimely filing extension request. Overall, it said, the Commerce Department’s rejection of that request was the result of an analysis that was “riddled with errors” (Jindal Poly Films v. United States, CIT # 24-00053).
The Commerce Department's third factor for assessing a foreign government's de facto control over an exporter, which addresses the selection of management, doesn't require a link to export activities, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Feb. 11. Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen also held that Commerce properly requires separate rate respondents to "carry a burden of persuasion to justify a separate rate," rejecting exporter Pirelli Tyre Co.'s claim that the agency shouldn't have conflated a rebuttable presumption with a requirement to carry a burden of persuasion.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Feb. 11 on AD/CVD proceedings:
In a motion for judgment, exporter CS Wind Malaysia again said the Commerce Department should have adjusted its manufacturing costs for a production stoppage throughout most of the period of an administrative review of an antidumping duty order (see 2409090008) (CS Wind Malaysia v. U.S., CIT # 24-00150).