Petitioners supporting a Commerce Department scope ruling argued that products’ end uses are not usually immediately considered for classification decisions and that industry support is only considered by the department during an initial antidumping or countervailing duty investigation, not during scope rulings or reviews (Hardware Resources, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00150).
The World Trade Organization's Dispute Settlement Body met on April 26 and was introduced to the new facilitator of the dispute settlement reform talks: Mauritius's Usha Dwarka-Canabady, the WTO announced. The chair of the DSB, Norway's Petter Olberg, said that Dwarka-Canabady accepted the role on April 18 after the "convenor" of the reform process left.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices April 29 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. and a domestic petitioner April 25 opposed an importer’s motion for judgment in a scope case, arguing that, because the product at issue was coated with a substance that promotes the adherence of ink and other artist materials, the importer’s canvas banner matisse was subject to an antidumping duty order on certain artist canvas from China (Printing Textiles, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00192).
The U.S. and petitioner Nucor Corp. defended the Commerce Department's use of partial adverse facts available against exporter Salzgitter Flachstahl in the antidumping duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany, in a pair of reply briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government said the steel company said Commerce properly identified a gap in the record stemming from Salzgitter's failure to submit manufacturer information for 28,000 of its sales from an affiliated reseller, Salzgitter Mannesmann Stahlhandel (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).
German exporter thyssenkrupp Rasselstein filed a notice of dismissal on April 26 at the Court of International Trade in its case contesting the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on tin mill products from Germany. The dismissal came before the company filed its complaint in the suit, only filing the summons on March 29. Counsel for the exporter didn't respond to a request for comment (thyssenkrupp Rasselstein v. United States, CIT # 24-00067).
A Vietnamese exporter of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube filed a motion for judgment in another case -- this one over a circumvention inquiry -- contesting the rejection of its filing because it narrowly missed a deadline. The exporter called the decision “fundamentally unfair” (Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co., Ltd v. U.S., CIT # 23-00248).
The Court of International Trade in an April 19 decision made public April 29 remanded the Commerce Department's second remand results in a case on the 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. Judge Mark Barnett for the third time sent back Commerce's decision not to start an investigation into the countervailability of the off-peak sale of electricity. The court said Commerce must address an allegation made by petitioner Nucor Cop. and explain why evidence the company submitted is "insufficient" for the agency to investigate the "off-peak pricing" under the existing "low standard" to open an investigation. Barnett also sustained Commerce's finding that exporter POSCO and input supplier Plantec aren't "cross-owned" due to Nucor's failure to raise the issue administratively.
Members of the World Trade Organization's Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices on April 24 met to review the latest notifications of "new, amended or previously reviewed anti-dumping laws and regulations" and actions, the WTO said. New legislation notices came in from "the Kyrgyz Republic, Rwanda, the United Kingdom and the United States," while the committee continued to review the notifications from Cameroon, the EU, Ghana, Liberia and Saint Kitts and Nevis. The committee was notified in semi-annual reports covering the period July 1 - Dec. 31, 2023, that 41 members took new AD actions and 14 reported no new actions.
Thai exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container is challenging the Commerce Department's decision to reclassify certain cylinders as outside the scope of the antidumping duty order on steel propane cylinders from Thailand as part of its model match methodology. In its complaint, filed at the Court of International Trade April 24, Sahamitr also challenged Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping in the 2021-22 review of the AD order (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. U.S., CIT # 24-00064).