The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 17 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. last week filed a supplemental brief regarding its motion to dismiss importer Houston Shutters' Section 1581(i) case at the Court of International Trade against the Commerce Department's failure to open a changed circumstances review of antidumping duty and countervailing duty determinations on wood moldings and millwork products from China." In the brief, the government discussed a 2010 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Trustees in Bankruptcy of North American Rubber Thread Co. v. U.S., which the U.S. says supports dismissal of the suit for lack of jurisdiction (Houston Shutters v. United States, CIT # 24-00193).
The Commerce Department erred in including importer GameChange Solar's off-grid solar charging modules in the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese solar cells, the importer argued in a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade last week. GameChange argued that Commerce "unlawfully" said its goods don't fit under the orders' exclusions for consumer goods or off-grid crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels (GameChange Solar v. United States, CIT # 24-00174).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 17 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to use partial adverse facts available against respondent Salzgitter Flachstahl in the antidumping duty investigation on cut-to-length carbon and alloy steel plate from Germany for its failure to provide manufacturer information for around 28,000 of its downstream sales made in Germany by one of its affiliates. Judges Timothy Dyk, Jimmie Reyna and Alan Lourie said that while Commerce's request for the manufacturer information placed an "unreasonable burden" on the respondent, Salzgitter didn't provide sufficient alternatives to supplying the information. The judges said "randomized sampling would have been a reasonable" alternative to the missing data.
The Commerce Department's regulations allowing it to set deadlines to file separate rate applications or certifications can't trump its statutory duty to examine the largest exporters by volume in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel racks from China, the Court of International Trade held on June 16. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that under the facts of the review, the agency improperly declined to consider exporter Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co. as a mandatory respondent despite it being the largest exporter of subject goods to the U.S. due to its untimely separate rate application.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 16 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 12 issued mandates in two trade cases. In one, it said the Court of International Trade cannot order the reliquidation of finally liquidated entries except where a protest has been filed or a civil action has been filed challenging an antidumping duty or countervailing duty determination (see 2504210029). The court said the statute, 19 U.S.C. 1514, doesn't let the trade court order reliquidation based on equitable considerations. In the other case, the court affirmed the Commerce Department's decision to adjust wind tower exporter Dongkuk S&C Co.'s steel plate input costs based on price fluctuations unrelated to the plate's physical characteristics in the input's price over time (see 2504210022) (Target Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2274) (Dongkuk S&C Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1419).
Indian exporter Chandan Steel told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 4 that the 145% total adverse facts available antidumping duty rate it received wasn’t justified by a reporting error that affected only 0.4% of its U.S. sales (Chandan Steel v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1291).
Canadian exporter Inferfor brought a June 11 complaint to the Court of International Trade arguing CBP had wrongly ended the suspension of liquidation on its entries during antidumping duty and countervailing duty reviews on softwood lumber from Canada (Interfor Sales & Marketing v. United States, CIT # 25-00105).
The Court of International Trade on June 16 held that the Commerce Department's regulations setting deadlines to file separate rate applications and certifications can't supersede the statutory requirement to pick mandatory respondents based on the volume of their exports. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce erred in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel racks from China by picking respondents based on value and not volume of U.S. sales and in declining to consider the largest exporter, Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing, based on its untimely separate rate certification. The judge said Dongsheng's information was "reasonably available" to the agency, since it was filed the same time as the information from other respondents who received filing extensions.