A binational panel formed under the North American Free Trade Agreement issued its decision regarding the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on softwood lumber products from Canada, sustaining and remanding various positions. The panel found that Commerce's scope findings in the proceeding were legal but that its use of its differential pricing analysis to root out "masked" dumping wasn't.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of international trade dismissed a case brought by Diamond Tools Technology (Thailand), which challenged the Commerce Department's determination that diamond sawblades produced in Thailand by Diamond Tools with Chinese cores and Chinese segments were circumventing antidumping duties on diamond sawblades from China, according to an Oct. 10 filing (Diamond Tools Technology (Thailand) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00143).
The Commerce Department didn't properly support its de jure specificity finding regarding a Chinese tax program that makes a resident enterprise's income derived from investment gains in another resident enterprise tax-exempt, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 11 opinion. Judge Jane Restani said the program, established under Article 26(2) of China's Enterprise Income Tax Law, is not tied to a specific enterprise or industry and thus fails the specificity analysis.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 11 remanded the antidumping duty investigation on wind towers from Spain for the second time. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that after individually investigating exporter Siemens Gamesa on the first remand, Commerce illegally levied a 73% adverse facts available rate on the company after collapsing it with affiliated supplier Windar Renovables and five of Windar's subsidiaries. Commerce unlawfully relied on the conclusion that the 73% AFA rate on Windar set in the original AD investigation was final and controlling and improperly used AFA on Siemens Gamesa given the record evidence, Stanceu said.
The Commerce Department's determination on remand that a German fee exemption program was de jure specific and could be countervailed was correct and should be sustained by the Court of International Trade, DOJ said in its Oct. 6 remand comments. In its August remand results, Commerce stuck with its previous finding in the countervailing duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany (see 2308070053) (BGH Edelstahl Siegen v. U.S., CIT # 21-00080).
The Commerce Department incorrectly calculated dumping rates for Canadian lumber exporters and used those "tainted" margins to calculate rates for other companies, a coalition including the governments of Canada and Quebec said in an Oct. 6 complaint to the Court of International Trade. The case is yet another involving the alleged misapplication of the Cohen's d test in Commerce's differential pricing methodology (Government of Canada, et al. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00187).
Four Canadian lumber exporters, along with their cross-owned affiliates, referred to as the "Originally Excluded Parties," asked the Court of International Trade to relieve them from the effects of a court order reinstating the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada. The originally excluded parties said the order was based on an earlier judgment, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, concerning the legal ground for conducting expedited CVD reviews, meaning that the trade court should restore "the status quo ante that existed prior" to the order for the remainder of the case (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 19-00122).
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.
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 11 opinion partially sustained and partially remanded the Commerce Department's eighth review of the countervailing duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. Judge Jane Restani granted the U.S. request for a remand regarding China's Export Buyer's Credit Program and the datasets used to set a benchmark for ocean freight. The court also sent back Commerce's use of a 2010 Thai Coldwell Banker Richard Ellis report in setting the land value benchmark and its de jure specificity finding regarding benefits received from a program that makes income from investment gains derived by a resident enterprise via direct investment in another resident enterprise tax exempt. Restani upheld Commerce's 2017 benefit finding regarding land leases, which was left to coexist in the present review period.