The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 3 sharply questioned counsel for exporter Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. in its case alleging that the Commerce Department doesn't have the adequate legal authority for its non-market economy policy in antidumping duty cases, which includes a rebuttable presumption that an exporter is controlled by the NME nation (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 5 sent back the Commerce Department's 2018-19 antidumping review of Italian pasta, finding that the agency improperly prioritized "transparency" and "consistency" over the physical differences between pasta sold in the U.S. and Italy. Given that protein content was used to distinguish premium and standard pasta for U.S. and like product comparison purposes, Judges Alan Lourie, Alvin Schall and Kara Stoll faulted Commerce for failing to account for FDA rounding requirements for the protein content listed on the label of U.S.-sold pasta and the "different nitrogen-to-protein conversion factors used in calculating protein content in the United States versus Italy." However, the court said exporter La Molisana didn't provide sufficient evidence to challenge Commerce's use of a 12.5% protein content breakpoint in distinguishing between standard and premium pasta.
The Commerce Department is asking for public comments on its proposals to revise the current policy of assessing entries of unaffiliated resellers at the all-others antidumping duty rate and to eliminate expedited countervailing duty reviews. Comments are due by July 7.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 4 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated May 19 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
In a complaint brought to the Court of International Trade on May 30, exporters Kumar Industries and Bajaj Healthcare Limited pushed back against the Commerce Department’s review of the antidumping duty order on Indian-origin glycine. Kumar was hit with adverse facts available after the Commerce Department found it failed to adequately report affiliation with four other companies (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT # 25-00081).
The Court of International Trade on June 2 sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in the antidumping duty investigation on Indian forged steel fluid end blocks, rejecting claims from the petitioners, led by Ellwood City Forge Co., that the agency should have expanded its use of adverse facts available. Judge Stephen Vaden said "neither statute nor case law requires such an inequitable result," given the limited nature of the gaps on the record.
The Court of International Trade on June 3 sustained the Commerce Department's negative final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on bootless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from India. Judge Mark Barnett upheld Commerce's use of financial statements from Indian producer TMTE Metal Tech to determine constructed value, rejecting claims from petitioner Edsal Manufacturing that the agency improperly accepted untimely information from respondent Triune Technofab about the public availability of the TMTE data and that the TMTE statements weren't publicly available. Barnett also rejected Edsal's claim that Commerce erroneously treated statements from Indian producer Mekins Industries as per se invalid due to the presence of countervailable subsidies.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 3 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade in a confidential May 30 order remanded parts and sustained parts of the Commerce Department's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on Chinese solar cells. Judge Claire Kelly sustained Commerce's valuation of air freight but sent back the agency's valuation of solar glass under Romanian Harmonized System subheading 7007.19.80 and its methodology for calculating adverse facts available. The judge also sent back Commerce's "determination of the review specific rate" for exporters JA Solar and BYD. Kelly gave the parties until June 5 to review the confidential information in the decision before the court releases a public version (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00219).