No record evidence supports the Commerce Department's finding that imports of plywood from Vietnam circumvented the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain hardwood plywood products from China, Vietnamese producer and exporter Greatriver Wood said in a Sept. 8 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Greatriver Wood v. U.S., CIT # 23-00155).
The government "completely" misinterpreted industry abstracts it relied on justify the Commerce Department's classification of backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs as "sheets" and not "film" for Risen Energy's surrogate values in an antidumping duty review on solar cells from China, Risen argued in a Sept. 7 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Sept. 8 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Commerce Department failed to comply with a Court of International Trade remand order in a countervailing duty case concerning forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany, exporter Edelstahl said in its Sept. 6 remand comments at the Court of International Trade. Edelstahl's comment contested the second remand redetermination by the Commerce Department, which continued to find that Germany's KAV program was de jure specific and could be countervailed (BGH Edelstahl Siegen v. U.S., CIT # 21-00080).
The Commerce Department's alleged unequal treatment of the parties in a scope ruling justifies judgment in favor of the importers, Elysium Tiles and Elysium Tile Florida argued in an Aug. 31 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The case concerns a scope ruling issued with respect to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tiles from China. Elysium argues that Commerce improperly met with Florida Tile, a member of the AD/CVD petitioner Coalition of Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile (Elysium Tiles v. U.S., CIT # 23-00041).
The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department’s remand redetermination of an antidumping duty investigation on OCTG from South Korea, DOJ argued. The court only ordered Commerce to reconsider a specific issue on remand, which the department did, DOJ wrote in its Sept. 6 remand comments to the Court of International Trade (Nexteel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 18-00083).
The Commerce Department reconsidered its rejection of exporter AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's proposed quality code for sour service petroleum transport on remand at the Court of International Trade. Submitting its redetermination on Sept. 7, the agency said it used the exporter's proposed quality code due to its decision in Bohler Bleche BMBH & Co. v. U.S., leading to an increase in Dillinger's dumping rate to 4.99% as part of the antidumping duty investigation on steel cut-to-length plate from Germany (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT # 17-00158).
The International Trade Commission did not err by declining to resolve an alleged ambiguity in the definition of the domestic like product scope as part of an antidumping duty injury investigation on fabricated structural steel from China, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled. Upholding the commission's negative injury finding, Judges Jimmie Reyna, William Bryson and Tiffany Cunningham said that nothing in the record showed that the ITC declined to address the issue, as claimed by the Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC).
The U.S. Lumber Coalition -- the petitioner in the fourth review of the antidumping duty order on lumber from Canada -- welcomed the Canadian government's stated intent to appeal the review results to the Court of International Trade. The judicial appeal is a "welcome change" in Ottawa's approach to the case because the nation "traditionally insists on requesting a United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement panel for their appeals," the coalition said.
The U.S. Lumber Coalition, which represents sawmills and owners of timberlands, said U.S. courts are the better venue for resolving legal questions on trade remedies, so its members are glad that Canada is going to the Court of International Trade rather than asking for a dispute panel under USMCA.