The U.S. backed the Commerce Department's valuation of exporter Jilin Bright Future Chemical's inputs of bituminous coal and coal tar as part of the 2020-21 review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. Filing its response to Jilin Bright's claims (see 2306080054) at the Court of International Trade, the government argued that the exporter failed to dispute Commerce's formula for converting useful heat value (UHV) to gross calorific value (GCV) as part of the BT coal valuation at the administrative level. As a result, Jilin Bright did not exhaust its administrative remedies, the brief said (Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00336).
Exporter Tau-Ken Temir waived its arguments against the Commerce Department's decision to grant the company's first two extension requests in part and reject the third request, the U.S. argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government said that because TKT did not raise the issues either at Commerce or at the Court of International Trade in its case on the countervailing duty investigation on silicon metal from Kazakhstan, the appellate court need not address the claims (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 29 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Commerce Department's use of an adverse inference against exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. for its supposed benefit from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program was "critically flawed," the Court of International Trade ruled on Aug. 25. Judge Timothy Stanceu, remanding the 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on woven ribbon from China, said that Commerce based its use of adverse facts available on "missing" information from the Chinese government that the agency never actually requested. The judge added that submissions from the Chinese state, along with Yama itself, stand as enough to refute any finding that the exporter benefitted from the EBCP.
A World Trade Organization dispute panel issued a report Aug. 24 concluding the panel's work following China and Australia's agreement regarding China's antidumping and countervailing duties on Australian barley.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 28 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Five U.S. steel companies -- ArcelorMittal Tubular Products, Michigan Semaless Tube, PTC Alliance Corp., Webco Industries and Zekelman Industries -- moved to dismiss their suit against the Commerce Department's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from India. The complaint had yet to be filed in the case, originally brought on July 26 (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. United States, CIT # 23-00147).
The Commerce Department in an antidumping proceeding correctly used a bona fide sale analysis of a single sale of wooden cabinets by importer Dalian Hualing Wood (Hualing) from a linked investigation, DOJ argued in an Aug. 24 response at the Court of International Trade. The brief came in reply to a June motion for judgment, in which Hualing argued that Commerce illegally made separate determinations in linked antidumping and countervailing duty reviews (see 2306260033) (Dalian Hualing Wood Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00334).
The Commerce Department revised its surrogate manufacturing overhead ratio and its surrogate hourly labor rate on remand at the Court of International Trade as part of a suit on the 2017-18 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. Per the remand results, submitted on Aug. 24, Commerce raised the dumping rate for respondent Fusong Jinglong Wooden Group Co. from zero to 2.05%, while keeping the 0% rate for Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co. The rate for the non-individually examined companies also rose to 2.05% (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. United States, CIT # 20-03948).
The Commerce Department didn't properly select Brazil as the primary surrogate nation in an antidumping review while also using Malaysian data for respondent Senmao's log inputs, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Aug. 24 opinion. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that in the 2019-20 AD review of multilayered wood flooring from China, Commerce failed to point to any record evidence it used in ditching Brazil's data for Malaysia's.