Tire exporter Guizhou Tyre Co. and Guizhou Tyre Import and Export Co. will appeal a Court of International Trade decision upholidng the Commerce Department's finding that Guizhou failed to rebut the presumption of government control in the antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from China. Per the notice of appeal, the companies will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court said that despite Commerce's "inartful and internally-inconsistent approach" to answering whether a company majority-owned by a government entity could ever prove to be free of government control, the agency did enough here to show that Guizhou's largest shareholder was still run by the government (see 2305230060) (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00031).
The Commerce Department shouldn't have rejected a questionnaire response in an antidumping duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Spain, considering that the agency relied on responses from the relevant company on remand, Siemens Gemesa Renewable Energy argued in its July 17 remand comments at the Court of International Trade (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. U.S., CIT # 21-00449).
Australian exporter BlueScope Steel is asking the Court of International Trade to overturn the International Trade Commission's decision to cumulate imports from Australia with shipments from other countries in its sunset review of the AD orders on the steel goods from Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, Turkey and the U.K. (BlueScope Steel v. U.S., CIT # 22-00353).
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.
Proposed changes by the Commerce Department to its antidumping and countervailing duty regulations were met with a diverse array of responses from governments, producers, importers, lawyers and others, with particular focus on the agency's proposal to consider intellectual property, human rights and environmental protections in AD/CVD proceedings and proposed changes that would allow particular market situation adjustments to the sales-below-cost test.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 18 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Tire exporters Guizhou Tyre and Aeolus Tyre will appeal a Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's decision to deny separate rate status to the companies as part of the seventh administrative review of the antidumping duty order on off-road tires from China. Per a pair of appeal notices, the companies will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the decision, the trade court said the agency properly used the China-wide AD rate of 105.31% on the companies after finding that the companies failed to rebut the presumption of government control (see 2305190026) (Guizhou Tyre v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 17-00100).
The Commerce Department's use of alternative characteristics of superabsorbent polymers supplied by antidumping respondent LG Chem to set control numbers (CONNUMs) in an AD investigation should be remanded, The Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers said in a July 14 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The coalition said the department's use of unverified and unrequested alternative superabsorbent polymer characteristics contravened an established practice (The Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers v. U.S., CIT # 23-00010).
The Commerce Department reversed its imposition of total adverse facts available on antidumping duty respondent Oman Fasteners in its July 17 remand results, resulting in a complete removal of a 154.33% AD rate for the company, Oman Fasteners, Commerce had ruled had failed to cooperate to the best of its ability because it did not submit all of its responses to a supplemental questionnaire by the deadline. The single late submission missed Commerce's cut-off time by 16 minutes and Court of International Trade Judge M. Miller Baker said that the ensuing suit was "not a close case" when he remanded the results in a February opinion (see 2302280040) (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., CIT # 22-00348)..