The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Sept. 5 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Commerce Department appropriately resorted to total adverse facts available against countervailing duty respondent Pastificio Gentile in the 2021 CVD review of Italian pasta, for failing to report all its affiliated companies, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Sept. 3. However, Judge Mark Barnett remanded the review for Commerce to explain the legal basis under which the agency decided to countervail programs it verified were unused during the period of review as part of the AFA treatment.
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 5 said the Commerce Department unlawfully rescinded the antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on wood molding and millwork products from China for exporters China Cornici and RaoPing HongRong Handicrafts. Judge Jane Restani said the agency can't rescind AD/CVD reviews "solely due to a lack of suspended entries" under its regulations. While China Cornici and RaoPing initially mislabeled their entries, the record shows the companies took steps to pay the required duties. Commerce can't just rely on "mislabeled paperwork" in rescinding AD/CVD reviews for exporters and must consider other "important" information, such as prior disclosures and deposits of duties, the court said.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Sept. 4 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 3 sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel plate from Italy, in a confidential decision. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Claire Kelly gave the parties until Sept. 9 to review the confidential information in the decision. The case was previously before Judge Stephen Vaden, who sent back the agency's use of a quarterly cost methodology to analyze exporter Officine Tecnosider's sales during the review (see 2409170068). On remand, Commerce again chose to calculate the respondent's costs quarterly, rather than annually (see 2501160082) (Officine Tecnosider SRL v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00001).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 2 heard oral argument in a case from importers, led by Sweet Harvest Foods, against the International Trade Commission's finding of critical circumstances for the importers' Vietnamese honey imports, which led to the retroactive imposition of antidumping duties on entries made in the 90-day window prior to the suspension of liquidation. Ron Kendler, counsel for the importers, argued that the ITC violated the logic of the critical circumstances statute, while ITC attorney Michael Haldenstein and Melissa Brower, counsel for petitioner American Honey Producers Association, said the commission's decision was entirely in bounds of the law (Sweet Harvest Foods v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1370).
On remand, the Commerce Department determined Aug. 29 that it wouldn’t use the Cohen’s d test in its calculation of German paper exporter Koehler Paper SE’s antidumping duty margin, instead applying its new “price difference test” (Matra Americas v. United States, CIT # 21-00632).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Sept. 3 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Knit underwear importer Viecura opposed the government’s motion for judgment in Viecura’s classification case Aug. 29 after arguing that a number of material facts are still in dispute (Viecura v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00154).
After several years of delay, plywood importer Cabinetworks Group Middlefield filed an Aug. 29 complaint alleging certain of its entries were wrongly assessed the China-wide 114.72% antidumping duty rate instead of its manufacturer’s and exporter’s 57.07% AD rate (Cabinetworks Group Middlefield v. United States, CIT # 21-00499).