The Commerce Department dropped the antidumping duty rate for exporter Nagase & Co. from 27.21% to 15.93% after excluding the "compensation for payment" amount originally listed in the company's general and administrative expense ratio. Submitting its remand results Aug. 9 to the Court of International Trade, Commerce said it reviewed the evidence, including an additional questionnaire submitted by Nagase, and found the compensation for payment represents the reimbursement of a consignee's expenses incurred for making non-subject merchandise (Nagase & Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00574).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 11 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation into forged steel fluid end blocks from India. Commerce said on remand that a questionnaire, issued in lieu of on-site verification for sole mandatory respondent Bharat Forge Limited, properly replaced on-site verification after initially saying it did not. Judge Stephen Vaden said the agency's decision does not comport with the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, which said that on remand, an agency can either take new action or further explain its position. Vaden ruled that Commerce cannot "short circuit the procedural requirements for new agency action" by reversing itself and asserting that it verified Bharat's information.
CBP announced an Enforce and Protect Act investigation on whether CIMC Intermodal Equipment (CIE) evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain chassis and subassemblies from China, and imposed interim measures, according to a ruling released Aug. 9.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee ruled that importer Cabinets to Go didn't demonstrate that Chinese manufacturer Haiyan's failure to certify its products' country of origin violated any material term of an agreement between the two companies (Cabinets to Go v. Qingdao Haiyan Real Estate Group Co., M.D. Tenn. # 3:21-00711).
Commerce’s remand results involving the inclusion of in-transit mattresses in its quarterly ratio calculation did not satisfy a remand order by the Court of International Trade, antidumping duty respondent Zinus Indonesia said in its Aug. 8 remand comments. The court should remand the matter to Commerce to recalculate Zinus' dumping margin without including the mattresses in-transit, Zinus said (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. U.S., CIT # 21-00277).
CBP's failure to timely release documents in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation deprived importer Phoenix Metal of its right to defend against the agency's allegation that it transshipped in order to avoid paying antidumping and countervailing duties (see 2303030049), Phoenix said in an Aug. 9 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The company said it had no chance to respond to allegations of evasion before "severe enforcement measures" were put in place, adding that CBP's "only purpose" in EAPA investigations "is to operate in the shadows and shun inconveniences like the [Administrative Procedure Act] and due process of law" (Phoenix Metal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00048).
The Commerce Department on remand at the Court of International Trade said antidumping duty respondent Fusong Jinlong Group was eligible for a separate rate from the China-wide entity, though the agency ultimately kept the 85.13% margin for the exporter using adverse facts available. Following the remand, the only difference is that the non-individually examined respondents in the 2018-19 review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from China are now levied a 42.57% rate instead of the 0% margin taken from respondent Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. U.S., CIT # 21-00595).
Door Thresholds Importers Tells CAFC Petitioner Ignored Scope Language in Aluminum Extrusions Orders
Antidumping duty petitioner Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee's claims against the exclusion of importers Worldwide Door Components' and Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds from the scope of the AD/CVD orders on aluminum extrusions from China sit on an incomplete reading of the scope, the importers argued. Filing a reply brief on Aug. 8 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Worldwide and Columbia claimed that the petitioner ignored the finished merchandise exclusion in the scope and that the Commerce Department refused to consider this exclusion in its initial scope ruling (Worldwide Door Components v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1532) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1534).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 9 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Court of International Trade Judge Mark Barnett encouraged parties in an antidumping duty case to involve their junior lawyers in an oral argument proceeding set for Aug. 15. Submitting a letter to the litigants in a suit on the AD investigation on raw honey from India, Barnett said the Federal Bar Council has suggested judges should modify their practice rules to let junior lawyers "take a more active role in oral arguments" (American Honey Producers Association v. United States, CIT # 22-00195).