The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Sept. 14 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department illegally assigned adverse facts available to Vietnamese hardwood plywood producers for alleged "deficiencies, inconsistencies and/or contradictions in their responses," as part of an antidumping and countervailing duty anti-circumvention proceeding, importer USPLY said in a Sept. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce failed to tell the Vietnamese producers of these supposed consistencies or give them an opportunity to rebut them, the importer argued (USPLY v. United States, CIT # 23-0156).
The Commerce Department's constructed value profit and selling expenses calculation for the 2019-2020 antidumping duty administrative review on oil country tubular goods from South Korea remains unsupported by substantial evidence after a remand, South Korean exporter Hyundai Steel said in its Sept. 12 comments to the Court of International Trade. Hyundai partially opposed the remand results despite the department's lowering of Hyundai's dumping margin, from 19.54% to 9.63% (see 2308160065) (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00138).
The International Trade Commission's decision to find that freight rail couplers from China and Mexico injured the domestic industry was not backed by substantial evidence, given its finding in a separate, previously conducted investigation that the couplers just from China did not injure the U.S. industry, importer Wabtec Corp. argued in a Sept. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00157).
The Court of International Trade upheld parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce "failed to consider the necessary factors" established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit before it used partial adverse facts available against respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. due to its suppliers' noncompliance. The agency also failed to justify its decision to deduct surcharges Shanghai Tainai included as extra profit in addition to Section 301 duties when calculating U.S. price, Vaden said. However, the judge sustained Commerce's remaining positions, including its insistence that it deduct the Section 301 duties from U.S. price.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Sept. 13 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade lacks jurisdiction to hear importer Greentech Energy Solution's claims challenging CBP's decision to assess antidumping and countervailing duties on its 2019 imports of solar modules from Vietnam, the U.S. said in a Sept. 7 motion to dismiss. The "protest procedure" at CIT and "judicial review" under Section 1581(a) are not "manifestly inadequate" to review Greentech's claims, barring review under Section 1581(i), the government said (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).
CBP will pay importer Marubeni-Itochu Steel America $494,902.80 to resolve the company's lawsuit, which said the agency failed to refund excess antidumping duty cash deposits. Per the Sept. 11 stipulated judgment, Marubeni will drop its claims against the government (Marubeni-Itochu Steel America v. U.S., CIT # 23-00004).
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.