The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 23 on AD/CVD proceedings:
In reply briefs May 17, a rail coupler importer refused to back down on its argument before the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department can’t begin new investigations fewer than two years before completion of a previous one due to statutory language governing changed circumstances reviews (Wabtec Corporation v. U.S., CIT #s 23-00160, -00161).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 22 on AD/CVD proceedings:
CBP continued to find on remand that importer Skyview Cabinet USA evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. After having the case returned to the agency following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., CBP allowed Skyview to submit rebuttal factual information to confidential information it didn't originally have access to, though it ultimately came to the same conclusion (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, CIT # 22-00080).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 21 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The government said in a May 20 status update that, for a case regarding an exporter’s adverse facts available rate after COVID-19 prevented in-person verification, the Commerce Department's remand redetermination will be out by Aug. 20 (PT. Asia Pacific Fibers v. U.S., CIT #22-00007).
Importer Valeo North America told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Commerce Department violated a "foundational principle of administrative law" in concluding the company's T-series aluminum sheet was covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders. Commerce failed to follow its "well-established legal framework" in making the scope decision, neglecting its duty as an administrative agency to provide coherent, ascertainable guidance so that regulated parties may anticipate how agencies enforce their rules and regulations," Valeo said (Valeo North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1189).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said on May 20 that the Court of International Trade was wrong to impose a 50% threshold in determining whether demand for a processed agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 20 on AD/CVD proceedings: