The U.S. government fully supported the Commerce Department's decision not to use adverse facts available against exporter Can Tho Import Export Seafood Joint Stock Co. in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, the exporter argued in a Feb. 5 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Can Tho Import Export said Commerce properly found that the respondent fully cooperated in the review and that Commerce correctly rejected the petitioner's allegation of a ministerial error (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 24-00082).
The Commerce Department should have deducted a German thermal paper exporter's interest accrued from unpaid antidumping duties from that exporter’s constructed export price, domestic producer Domtar argued Jan. 31 (see 2408010048) (Domtar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00113).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 7 sustained the Commerce Department's use of San Shing Fastech Corp.'s financial statements to calculate the constructed value profit and indirect selling expenses for respondent Your Standing International in an antidumping duty review on steel nails from Taiwan. Judge Claire Kelly said Commerce reasonably supported its selection after considering that San Shing made comparable merchandise, had contemporaneous financial statements and made over 70% of its sales to markets outside the U.S. The judge also said that Your Standing failed to exhaust its administrative remedies when arguing that the respondent and San Shing lacked a similar customer base.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Feb. 6 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following lawsuit has been filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. moved to dismiss importer Houston Shutters' case at the Court of International Trade filed under Section 1581(c) against the Commerce Department's "unpublished determination not to initiate a changed circumstances review." The government said the decision not to start the CCR isn't a decision listed under either 19 U.S.C. § 1516a or 1517, either of which would give the trade court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1581(c) (Houston Shutters v. United States, CIT # 24-00175).
The Commerce Department erred in using a country-wide adverse facts available rate in calculating the antidumping duty rate for the separate rate respondents, importers led by Galleher Corp. argued in an opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Galleher argued the use of the AFA rate "punishes" the separate rate firms for respondent Sino-Maple's "lack of cooperation" and leads to an "aberrational margin that does not bear any relationship to the actual dumping margins of the separate rate companies" (Fuson Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1196).
DOJ under President Donald Trump likely will pursue greater criminal enforcement of the most recent tariffs imposed on China to serve as a "general deterrent" and "punish instances of serious misconduct," attorneys at BakerHostetler said in a recent post. In response, foreign parties should be "mindful of their potential criminal exposure," partners Artie McConnell, Jennifer Solari and Michael Snarr said.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Feb. 5 on AD/CVD proceedings: