The Commerce Department didn't meaningfully respond to arguments regarding the specificity of the provision of Korean Allowance Units (KAUs) by the South Korean government's cap-and-trade system in a countervailing duty review, the Court of International Trade ruled on Dec. 18.
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 19 opinion denied two quartz surface product exporters' bid to partially dissolve an existing injunction on liquidation after finding the companies did not make a "sufficient showing" for the motion. Concurrently, Judge Mark Barnett denied antidumping petitioner Cambria's motion for an injunction on liquidation, which was filed following the consolidation of its action with the exporters' suit so the relevant entries would be covered if the judge granted the motion to dissolve. Barnett denied Cambria's motion related to the entries for which liquidation is currently enjoined since he denied the motion to dissolve the injunction. The judge also denied Cambria's motion in relation to the entries not currently enjoined because the motion was untimely filed.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 19 on AD/CVD proceedings:
No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
A domestic antidumping duty petitioner challenged intervention of more companies in another ongoing case over a 2021 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Canadian softwood lumber products (Resolute FP Canada Inc. v. United States, CIT # 23-00206).
The Commerce Department "did not err" when it found exporter Dalian Hualing Wood Co.'s lone U.S. sale was bona fide in a countervailing duty review but not bona fine in the antidumping duty review on the same goods, the Court of International Trade ruled on Dec. 18. Sustaining a 251.65% China-wide AD rate on Hualing's lone sale in the 2019-21 AD review of wooden cabinets and vanities from China, Judge Jane Restani said nothing in the new shipper review statute, nor any other statute, "compels Commerce to reach the same conclusion in distinct administrative proceedings, even if based upon the same sale."
Pencil importer Royal Brush Manufacturing was required to file protests before it could challenge CBP's allegedly improper liquidations under an Enforce and Protect Act antidumping duty evasion investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled on Dec. 15. Dismissing the company's case for lack of jurisdiction, Judge Mark Barnett echoed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Juice Farms v. U.S. in ruling that "all liquidations, whether legal or not, are subject to the timely protest requirement."
The Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 18 that the Commerce Department could use one antidumping mandatory respondent’s third-country sales to construct another’s profit, selling expenses and profit cap. In a case filed in May 2022 and voluntarily remanded to Commerce in June of this year, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves upheld Commerce’s use of SeAH Steel Corp.’s third-country sales in calculating a constructed export price for Hyundai Steel in a 2020 administrative review. She also upheld the agency's use of that export price in setting the AD duty for all non-individually examined respondents. The review had assigned a 19.54% AD duty for Hyundai, a 3.85% duty for SeAH and an 11.70% all-others rate.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 18 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Several of U.S. importer Essential Ribbons’ twist ties with attached bows, made to hold bags closed or bundles together, are covered by the antidumping duty order on twist ties from China, Commerce ruled Nov. 27 in a scope ruling.