The Commerce Department erred in using adverse facts available related to exporter The Ancientree Cabinet Co.'s alleged receipt of benefits from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, Ancientree argued in a Jan. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Ancientree said it demonstrated that neither it nor its U.S. customers used the EBCP (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00223).
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "China import").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead.
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., +CBP).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., -ruling).
Singular form: Always use the singular form when doing multi-word terms (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls").
Shortest word form: When you have different word forms in a quoted (multi-word) term, you want to only include the shortest version if it is the last part of the expression (e.g., "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
Various exporters led by Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. challenged the Commerce Department's antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on aluminum foil from China at the Court of International Trade (Hangzhou Five Star Aluminum Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00231) (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00228).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Nine different companies filed a total of 18 nearly identical complaints at the Court of International Trade on Jan. 13 contesting the Commerce Department's antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on aluminum extrusions from China. All the cases contest a part of Commerce's final scope decision in the proceedings, which found that the agency had the "legal authority to include within the scope of investigation, and did in fact include, 'inputs' to imported merchandise, as opposed to the actual imported merchandise itself" (Daikin Comfort Technologies Manufacturing v. United States, CIT #s 24-00250, -252).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 15 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to deny exporters Hyundai Steel Co. and Husteel Co.'s constructed export price offsets in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. Judge Timothy Reif said that Commerce reasonably said a "per-unit analysis" was needed to properly assess whether the home market and CEP sales were made at a more advanced stage of distribution and that neither respondent submitted such an analysis. The judge also said Hyundai received adequate notice of any insufficiencies in its submissions.
The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's use of exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret's invoice date as the date of sale as opposed to the contract date in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete rebar from Turkey. Judge Jane Restani also upheld Commerce's differences-in-merchandise adjustment calculation, which accounted for inflation. The judge said the calculation wasn't "distortive" as Kaptan claimed, and, in fact, could have actually been distortive had it not accounted for inflation.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Jan. 14 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Domestic producers led by Dupont Teijin Films joined the U.S. government (see 2412090058) in defending the Commerce Department in another missed deadline case, calling an exporter slapped with an adverse facts available rate “careless” and “inattentive” (Jindal Poly Films v. U.S., CIT # 24-00053).
CBP reversed its finding that importer Zinus evaded the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China on remand at the Court of International Trade. CBP made the decision after incorporating a scope ruling from the Commerce Department finding that seven models of metal and wood platform beds imported by Zinus aren't covered by the AD order (Zinus v. United States, CIT # 23-00272).
Indian aluminum sheet exporter Hindalco Industries brought a complaint Jan. 10 to the Court of International Trade, saying the Commerce Department wrongly found to be specific programs by which Hindalco had been provided bauxite mining rights and coal and bauxite by the government of India for less-than-adequate remuneration (Hindalco Industries v. United States, CIT # 24-00234).