Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly again remanded the Commerce Department’s de facto specificity finding regarding South Korea’s below-cost provision of off-peak electricity in a countervailing duty administrative review, saying the department still hasn’t rationally explained why it grouped three unrelated industries and found that they, together, disproportionately received the subsidy.
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 Court of International Trade affirmed Aug. 11 the Commerce Department’s decision to, in an antidumping duty administrative review, reject Chinese solar cell exporter Yingli China’s separate rate application even though its U.S. sales were conducted through an affiliate, Yingli Green Energy Americas, with separate ownership.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 19 on AD/CVD proceedings:
All the parties opposing the results of an antidumping duty review on Chinese activated carbon argued that Commerce failed to correct two mathematical mistakes in its review results despite timely ministerial error allegations (Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00262).
The Commerce Department's failure to investigate and attribute subsidies received by respondent Antiqa Minerals' cross-owned affiliates and their suppliers in a countervailing duty investigation was unlawful, petitioner The Coalition for Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile argued in an Aug. 15 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Challenging the CVD investigation on ceramic tile from India, the coalition said Commerce's cross-ownership analysis of Antiqa was unsupported by substantial evidence (The Coalition for Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile v. United States, CIT # 25-00152).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Aug. 19 the Commerce Department’s rejection of an exporter’s response to a separate rate questionnaire the department had already rescinded, having realized it had been issued in error. After the rejection, the exporter, Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer, received the China-wide rate for the 2019-20 antidumping review of Chinese-origin aluminum wire and cable. In the nine-page opinion, CAFC explained that the questionnaire was rescinded because Jin Tiong failed to file a timely separate rate application (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 18 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department properly relied on Maersk data as the surrogate value for ocean freight and found that certain fabricated steel components used by respondent Zhejiang Dingli Machinery shouldn't be valued using data under Harmonized System subheadings covering "primary or raw steel products," petitioner Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment argued. Submitting remand comments to the Court of International Trade on Aug. 11, the coalition urged the court to accept the agency's remand results in the antidumping duty investigation on mobile access equipment from China (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00152).