Three German exporters, led by Ilsenburger Grobblech, opposed the U.S. government's motion for an extension of time to file its response brief in an appeal of the antidumping duty investigation on cut-to-length carbon and alloy steel plate from Germany. The U.S. asked for a six-day extension, but Ilsenburger said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has already given the government a 37-day extension and that the additional six days would effectively double the time under the court's rules to file a response brief (Ilsenburger Grobblech v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).
The Court of International Trade on April 8 sent back the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against exporter Garg Tube in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India. Judge Claire Kelly instructed Commerce to invoke the specific statutory provision on which it relies on remand and explain either how the use of AFA promotes accuracy or how Garg Tube failed to respond to the best of its ability. The judge also rejected Garg Tube's challenge to Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test to root out "masked" dumping due to the company's failure to raise the issue administratively.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices April 15 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A petitioner in a review of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain chassis and subassemblies from China filed a consent motion April 10 to intervene in a case challenging that review brought by importer Pitts Enterprises. The Coalition of American Chassis Manufacturers said it intends to join the case on the side of Pitts to litigate the Commerce Department’s interpretation of the orders’ language (Pitts Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00030).
A domestic petitioner said April 11 that it supports the Commerce Department’s result after a second remand that an Indonesian biodiesel exporter’s antidumping and countervailing duties hadn’t overlapped to create a double remedy -- a conclusion the department reached after it reluctantly conducted a court-ordered pass-through analysis (see 2403130049). The exporter also announced earlier that it wouldn't be submitting comments in opposition (Wilmar Trading PTE Ltd. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 18-00121).
The U.S. and a defendant-intervenor defended the Commerce Department’s use of adverse facts available in another Export Buyers’ Credit Program case April 10 before the Court of International Trade. A Chinese solar cell exporter was slapped with the AFA after one of its customers refused to provide a non-use certificate (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00153).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices April 12 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A number of Canadian lumber exporters moved for judgment upon the agency record in a softwood lumber case April 5. So did defendant-intervenors led by a domestic petitioner group, which said that the Commerce Department should have subtracted countervailing duty costs from the exporters’ U.S. prices (Government of Canada v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00187).