The Commerce Department was not required to credit countervailing duty respondent Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum's claims of non-use of the Export Buyer’s Credit Program (EBCP) and correctly applied adverse facts available, DOJ said in a July 10 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The brief came in reply to Alcha's April motion for judgment, in which it contested the agency's methodology during the administrative review of a countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from China (see 2304170048) (Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00290).
The False Claims Act's scienter element, which says a person must have "knowingly" made false statements, refers to a defendant's knowledge and subjective beliefs and not to what an objectively reasonable person may have known or believed, the U.S. said in an amicus brief invited by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Citing recent Supreme Court precedent from U.S. ex rel. Schute v. SuperValu, the U.S. said the appeals court should reject importer Sigma Corp.'s arguments to the contrary in a case on whether the company violated the False Claims Act by filing false customs forms to evade antidumping duties (Island Industries v. Sigma Corp., 9th Cir. # 22-55063).
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.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 11 opinion affirmed the Court of International Trade's opinion upholding the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against countervailing duty respondent Jangho Group in a case on the 2013 review of the CVD order on aluminum extrusions from China. The two-page order from Judges Kimberly Moore, Alan Lourie and Tiffany Cunningham was issued without an explanation of the ruling.
The Court of International Trade on July 12 upheld the Commerce Department's decision on voluntary remand to slash the antidumping duty rate for the separate rate respondents in the 2016-17 review on diamond sawblades from China from 82.05% to 41.03%. The case had been stayed pending the resolution of Bosun Tools v. U.S., in which Commerce originally used the 82.05% adverse facts available rate in an earlier review given that the mandatory respondents were uncooperative. The agency slashed the rate in that case as well, leading to an identical move in the present case led by exporter Danyang Weiwang Tools Manufacturing Co.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 11 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a case on the 2014-15 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit said that a company unable to prove it has entries for the purposes of being granted a separate AD rate should not automatically be rescinded from the review (see 2305190060). While the court found unconvincing the government's claim that it is not required to rescind a review for a company with no entries, the judges did rule that exporter Ningbo Qixin did not establish that it had no shipments, even though the agency rejected a separate rate for the company since it couldn't verify any entries (Canadian Solar International v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 20-2162).
A horizontal lawnmower engine should not have been included under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on vertical shaft engines between 99cc and up to 225cc from China in a Commerce Department scope ruling simply because it is used in walk-behind mowers, exporter Zhejiang Amerisun Technology said in a July 7 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Zhejiang Amerisun Technology v. U.S., CIT # 23-00011).
Judge Todd Hughes at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during July 10 oral argument expressed doubt over antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube's claim that the Commerce Department can make a cost-based particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test where normal value is based on constructed value. The judge referenced the Federal Circuit's past ruling in Hyundai Steel v. U.S., which found that cost-based PMS adjustments cannot be made to the sales-below-cost test (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1175).