The U.S. on March 4 opposed exporter Chandan Steel Limited's motion for reconsideration of the Court of International Trade's order sustaining the company's adverse facts available rate in the 2018-19 antidumping duty review on stainless steel flanges from India. The government argued that the court properly found it didn't need to resolve certain issues pertaining to Chandan's allocation method for reporting its costs of production and that Chandan failed to show any "manifest error" in the court's decision to sustain the use of AFA based on the exporter's inadequate reporting of comparison market window period sales (Kisaan Die Tech Private, Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 21-00512).
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public March 5 sustained the Commerce Department's use of exporter Nexco's acquisition costs as a proxy for its suppliers' costs of production in the antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Argentina.
The Court of International Trade on March 6 sustained the Commerce Department's fourth remand results excluding Star Pipe Products' ductile iron flanges from the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that Commerce appropriately considered (k)(1) sources given the uncertainty of whether Star Pipe's flanges plainly fit under the order and that substantial evidence backs the conclusion the flanges aren't subject to the order. The judge also said that the agency didn't base its fourth remand results on the "end use" limitation, as suggested by AD petitioner ASC Engineered Solutions.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices March 5 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Feb. 29 reply brief that exporter Guizhou Tyre offered a "confused rendition of" the Commerce Department's separate rate analysis, equating the presumption of foreign state control with the lower standard from the agency's "substantial evidence requirement." The government said that, contrary to Guizhou Tyre's claims, it's not Commerce's duty to affirmatively show an absence of Chinese state control (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2165).
The Court of International Trade on March 5 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a suit on the antidumping investigation on raw honey from Argentina. Judge Claire Kelly said Commerce properly used exporter Nexco's acquisition costs as a proxy for its suppliers' costs of production. Because the statute emphasizes finding whether the goods are sold at below fair value, the agency's departure from its normal practice of using the suppliers' data is "justified," Kelly said. The judge also upheld Commerce's comparison of Nexco's normal values based on third country sales prices and U.S. sales prices on a monthly, rather than quarterly, basis.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices March 4 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on March 1 issued a scheduling order in the lawsuit challenging the Commerce Department's pause on antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Southeast Asian countries found to be circumventing the AD/CVD orders on these goods from China (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).