The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 14 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department illegally expanded the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on truck wheels from China to include truck wheels made in a third country using either Chinese-origin rims or Chinese-origin discs, but not both, exporter Asia Wheel Co., Ltd., said in an Aug. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Since Asia Wheel makes truck wheels using only Chinese-origin discs, the agency illegally included these goods under the scope of the orders, the company argued (Asia Wheel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00143).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 11 order granted the Commerce Department's voluntary remand request in a suit on the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan. Commerce asked for the remand so it could make exporter Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. a mandatory respondent in the review to bring the proceeding into compliance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's opinion in YC Rubber Co. v. U.S. (Optima Steel International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00108).
CBP's attempts to collect a 14-year-old bond for antidumping duties on Chinese garlic shouldn't be thrown out because a change in tactic by the government didn't fundamentally alter the responsibilities of the bond issuer, DOJ argued in an Aug. 10 reply at the Court of International Trade (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance, CIT # 20-03628).
The Commerce Department can't "short circuit the procedural requirements for new agency action" by declaring that a questionnaire can take the place of on-site verification in an antidumping duty proceeding after initially saying that it can't, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Aug. 11 opinion. The agency's change of heart, issued on remand, cuts against the Supreme Court of the U.S. finding in Dept. of Homeland Secuity v. Regents of the Univ. of California, in which the court said that on remand an agency can either take new agency action or further explain its position.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The government filed for an unopposed remand at the Court of International Trade of a suit on the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan. The U.S. said that if the remand is granted, the Commerce Department intends "to treat Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. as a mandatory respondent in its administrative review." Counsel for plaintiff Optima Steel consented to the motion, while counsel for petitioner Nucor Corp. took no position on the motion (Optima Steel International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00108).
The Commerce Department's continued use of the Cohen's d test on remand in an antidumping duty case included data that didn't meet the test's statistical criteria, exporter SeAH Steel said in its Aug. 9 remand comments at the Court of International Trade. Commerce cherry-picked data samples out of context to support its arguments and then failed to provide an explanation of how the department's use of the d test showed a pattern of SeAH’s U.S. prices that differed significantly among purchasers, regions or periods, SeAH said. SeAH asked the court to again remand the case to Commerce for reconsideration, especially regarding the limitations on the "reasonable use of Cohen’s d test" (Nexteel Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 18-00083).
The Commerce Department abused its discretion when it rejected Mexican exporter Simec's extension request and refused to accept a late submission during the 2019-20 antidumping duty administrative review on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico, exporter Acerero said in its Aug. 9 reply motion at the Court of International Trade. The motion came in response to a filing from the Rebar Trade Action Coalition (RTAC), which asked the court to uphold Commerce's use of adverse facts available in calculating Simec's AD rate of 66.7% and the all-others rate assigned to exporter Sidertul and Acerero at 33.35% (see 2307110019) (Grupo Acerero v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00202).