Thai trailer wheel exporters and importers sought relief Nov. 20 from a Commerce Department final scope ruling that their products, whose components were made from Chinese-sourced materials, were subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese trailer wheels (Asia Wheel v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00096).
The Commerce Department relied on incomplete data when it used a Tier 3 benchmark calculation methodology in the 2020-21 review of the countervailing duty order on phosphate fertilizers from Russia, U.S. importer Archer Daniels Midland Co. argued in a Dec. 1 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00239).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 4 opinion sustained the Court of International Trade's ruling upholding the Commerce Department's 2018 antidumping review of circular welded carbon steel pipes from Thailand. During litigation on the review, the agency removed a particular market situation adjustment it initially made to respondents Saha Thai Steel and Thai Premium Pipe's costs of production to determine normal value as part of the sales-below-cost test. Commerce dropped the PMS adjustment after the Federal Circuit's ruling in Hyundai Steel v. U.S., which made the adjustment illegal. Petitioner Wheatland Tube attempted to distinguish the present case from Hyundai Steel by claiming the PMS adjustment was a constructed value calculation. The court disagreed, saying Hyundai Steel is controlling.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 1 on AD/CVD proceedings:
DOJ in a Nov. 20 brief once again defended its right to use adverse facts available in calculating an Indian quartz surface product exporter's antidumping duty rate after that importer missed a filing deadline by several hours. It also stood by its all-others rate for other Indian quartz exporters against a domestic petitioner's challenge (Cambria Company v. U.S., CIT # 23-00007).
The Commerce Department improperly came to the conclusion that Indian exporter Balkrishna Industries didn't use, or benefit from, India's Advanced Authorization Scheme in the 2021 countervailing duty review on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from India, petitioner Titan Tire Corp. argued in a Nov. 28 complaint. Titan Tire said that Commerce based its finding on a "post hoc, incomplete, and cursory examination" conducted by the Indian government related to the program (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00233).
Solar cell exporter Risen Energy Co. may not amend its complaint to add a claim against the countervailability of China's Article 26(2) tax program in a suit challenging the 2020 countervailing duty review on solar cells from China, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 30 opinion. Judge Jane Restani said that because the issue was not raised administratively at any point, Risen now could not bring the claim before the court. Waiving the exhaustion requirement is "inappropriate" because the exporter does not raise a "pure question of law" but one that requires additions to the record, Restani said.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Nov. 30 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Exporters, led by Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech, will appeal a Court of International Trade decision sustaining the use of adverse facts available on Salzgitter's sales for which the company could not identify or report the manufacturer in the antidumping duty investigation on cut-to-length carbon and alloy steel plate from Germany. While the trade court upheld the Commerce Department's decision to use facts available in 2019, the court sent back the way Commerce used partial AFA in the investigation. The agency's decision was eventually sustained over Salzgitter's claim that the use of partial AFA was unreasonable or unlawful (see 2311160012). According to the notice of appeal, the companies will take their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT # 17-00158).