Petitioners led by Insteel Wire Products Company argued Aug. 7 that the Commerce Department doesn’t need to change up its approach for circumvention inquiries on goods that undergo further processing in the United States rather than in a third country (Deacero v. United States, CIT # 24-00212).
The Commerce Department on Aug. 11 clarified the basis it used for applying adverse facts available against respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon and steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade, Commerce said it reconsidered Saha Thai and BNK Steel Co.'s affiliation status and found that the two are affiliated based on AFA (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00627).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 12 sustained the Commerce Department's selection of a surrogate financial statement and use of respondent Siam Metal Tech Co.'s invoice date as the date of sale for the respondent's U.S. sales in an antidumping duty proceeding. Sustaining the AD investigation on boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from Thailand, Judge Mark Barnett also upheld the agency's reliance on respondents Bangkok Sheet Metal Public Co.'s and Siam Metal's actual costs that are recorded in their financial accounting systems for the total cost of manufacturing.
The Commerce Department properly included importer Valeo North America's T-series aluminum sheet in the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Aug. 12. Judges Richard Taranto, Todd Hughes and Kara Stoll disagreed with the importer as to the ambiguity in the orders' scope and on whether its aluminum sheet falls outside the orders' scope, since it's heat-treated.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 12 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. filed a motion for default judgment at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 10 against importer Rago Tires, seeking $56,435.48 for gross negligence in classifying its tires as not subject to antidumping duties and countervailing duties (United States v. Rago Tires, CIT # 24-00043).
The U.S. "myopically" focused on a "single piece of evidence" regarding the proper date of sale of exporter Toyo Kohan's U.S. sales in the 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on diffusion-annealed nickel-plate flat-rolled steel from Japan, Toyo Kohan argued in an Aug. 8 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The government's brief centered on a statement in the exporter's questionnaire responses and the "price of a single example sales transaction" and says this focus is "reasonable," yet it's unreasonable to "ignore the second example in the same exhibit" that shows a price change, the brief said (Toyo Kohan Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00261).
Defendant-intervenor Fresh Garlic Producers Association said Aug. 8 that the Commerce Department properly found importer Green Garden Produce circumvented an antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from China (Green Garden Produce v. United States, CIT # 24-00114).
The Commerce Department on Aug. 8 calculated an individual countervailing duty rate for exporter Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. on remand in a case on the administrative review of the CVD order on multilayered wood flooring from China for the 2017 review period. Commerce gave Jiangsu Senmao a 2.4% CVD rate in response to an instruction from the Court of International Trade to individually review the respondent (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-03885).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 12 sustained the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation into boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from Thailand. Judge Mark Barnett upheld Commerce's selection of Thai steel shelving maker PNS Manufacturing's financial statements to determine constructed value and the agency's decision to use the date of invoice as the date of sale for respondent Siam Metal's U.S. sales. The judge also sustained Commerce's reliance on respondents Bangkok Sheet and Siam Metal's actual costs as recorded in their financial accounting systems as the companies' total cost of manufacturing.