The Commerce Department wasn't required to broaden its use of adverse facts available based on small reporting errors from the respondent, the Court of International Trade held on June 2. During verification conducted on remand in the antidumping duty investigation on Indian steel fluid end blocks, Commerce found two errors from respondent Bharat Forge: its reported content of molybdenum, a steel input, for one steel grade and its failure to report "parts" costs for two control numbers. Judge Stephen Vaden rejected the petitioners' claims that these errors indicate broader reliability concerns in Bharat's data, finding that Commerce had no need to "apply a broader adverse inference," since the errors were small.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 2 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 30 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty scope case from importers Smith-Cooper International and Sigma after denying a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The importers petitioned for a rehearing of the court's March decision finding the term "butt-weld" to be ambiguous and that the Commerce Department was right to find steel branch outlets to be covered by an AD order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China (see 2503060073). Judge Timothy Dyk dissented in that three-judge decision, finding that the agency erred by refusing to properly consider the regular industry definition of the term (Vandewater International v. United States, Fed. Cir. #s 23-1093, -1141).
The U.S. and defendant-intervenor Wind Tower Trade Coalition each pushed back against exporter CS Wind Malaysia’s challenges to a 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on utility scale wind towers from Malaysia (CS Wind Malaysia v. United States, CIT # 24-00079, -00150).
Pea protein exporters and an importer said May 27 the International Trade Commission is wrongly attempting to create a new legal standard for determining the existence of critical circumstances (NURA USA v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00182).
The Court of International Trade, in a decision made public May 29, said failing to act as a mandatory respondent isn't "unrelated to government control" for purposes of getting a separate antidumping duty rate. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce isn't required to establish that companies are part of the Chinese government, because that is the presumption. Rather, he said, it's the companies that must show evidence if they are independent of the government.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 30 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 29 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Importer AM Stone & Cabinets May 22 sought dismissal of one of its challenges to Commerce Department administrative reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on quartz countertops. Its case had argued that Commerce wrongly hit it with adverse facts available to determine that its products were made in China, not Malaysia (see 2501170048) (AM Stone & Cabinets v. United States, CIT # 24-00243).
Exporter Hyundai Steel and the South Korean government each pushed back again May 19 against the Commerce Department’s specificity finding, maintained after a remand, regarding the provision of off-peak electricity by the Korean government to Hyundai for less-than-adequate remuneration. The department completely failed to follow the trade court's remand order, they said (see 2504160043) (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00211).