Several importers appealed for relief April 22 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, saying in their opening brief that the International Trade Commission wrongly reached an affirmative critical circumstances determination regarding their Vietnamese honey imports and the Court of International Trade erroneously upheld it (Sweet Harvest Foods v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1370).
Antidumping petitioner SSAB Enterprises argued that the Commerce Department was justified in using partial adverse facts available against respondent Salzgitter Flachstahl due to the company's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability. While Salzgitter said it couldn't submit certain requested information because one of its affiliated resellers, Salzgitter Mannesmann Stahlhandel, didn't keep that information, SSAB said that "Salzgitter cannot rely on" Salzgitter Mannesmann's "sloppy recordkeeping as a valid excuse to justify its failure to provide Commerce with the requested manufacturer information" (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).
The Commerce Department abused its discretion by denying an exporter’s supplemental questionnaire extension request amid the COVID-19 pandemic’s 2021 delta variant wave, Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden ruled April 25. He pointed out that, by the time of the rejection, three of Simec’s key accountants had died of the disease and a fourth was "hospitalized and intubated."
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices April 25 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Commerce Department unlawfully rescinded an administrative review, falsely determining that an exporter hadn't made any U.S. sales during the period being examined, the exporter said in April 19 motion for judgment (China Cornici Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00217).
The Court of International Trade on April 24 sustained CBP's finding on remand that importer Columbia Aluminum Products didn't evade the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. But Judge Timothy Stanceu rejected Columbia's claim that CBP needed to immediately terminate the interim measures issued under the Enforce and Protect Act after reversing its original evasion finding.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices April 24 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The United States asked for 14 more days to file its reply brief in an appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the validity of the Commerce Department's non-market economy policy in antidumping duty cases. The government said it needs more time to prepare its draft brief and receive input from DOJ "supervisory counsel" and Commerce attorneys (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).
A domestic petitioner April 19 supported the U.S. in a case involving an antidumping duty investigation on freight rail couplers, saying that the case’s plaintiff, an exporter, had misunderstood the rules of statutory interpretation. That exporter has argued that the Commerce Department is barred from beginning new investigations fewer than two years before a previous one was completed (see 2404080049), pointing to statutory language governing changed circumstances reviews that appears to apply broadly (Wabtec Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00161).
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.