The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 30 on AD/CVD proceedings:
CBP reversed an evasion determination against Scioto Valley Woodworking, after initially having found that Scioto had imported Chinese wooden cabinets and vanities by transshipment through Malaysia using adverse facts available. Upon review, CBP found the use of AFA was unwarranted and said evidence showed the manufacturer, Alno, could and did produce wooden cabinets and vanities in Malaysia.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade recently granted DOJ’s motion for more time to file its remand results in a case on CBP's Enforce and Protect Act determination that Fedmet Resources evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on magnesia alumina carbon bricks from China. Fedmet opposed the motion, which sought a 60-day extension of the July 3 due date, because it would perpetuate the "continuing prejudice" suffered by the importer due to the "unjustified imposition of interim measures against Fedmet," which has effectively stopped it from importing MAC bricks since May 2020. The court granted the extension motion in a text-only order, giving the government until Sept. 1 to file the remand results. It said no further extensions would be granted unless a showing of extraordinary circumstances is made (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 21-00248).
The Court of International Trade should reject a challenge from U.S. steel company Cleveland-Cliffs of the International Trade Commission’s decision not to cumulate imports in sunset reviews, two Brazilian steel exporters said in a June 27 brief at CIT. The steel producers -- Companhia Siderurgica Nacional and Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais -- said Cleveland Cliffs illegally asked CIT to "seize the Commission’s statutory discretion to decumulate in sunset reviews, establish new law, reweigh the evidence, and make findings that this Court has never made before” (Cleveland-Cliffs v. U.S., CIT # 22-00257).
The Tariff Act of 1930 does not provide the exclusive means for recovering evaded antidumping duties, the Anti-Fraud Coalition said in a June 26 amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The False Claims Act stands as a "complementary enforcement mechanism" used when an importer defrauds the U.S. by filing false customs forms to evade duties, the brief said. The coalition filed its brief in an FCA suit on whether Sigma Corp., along with other companies, evaded antidumping duties on welded couplets from China by submitting false customs information (Island Industries v. Sigma Corp., 9th Cir. # 22-55063).
The Court of International Trade in a June 22 opinion made public June 30 upheld CBP's affirmative evasion finding related to imports of hardwood plywood from American Pacific Plywood, Global Forest and InterGlobal Forest. CBP said the companies skirted antidumping and countervailing duties on the plywood from China by transshipping their imports through Cambodia. Judge M. Miller Baker ruled that the importers' due process claims relating to their lack of access to confidential information fell flat since they failed to claim that the public summaries of the information were insufficient. The judge added that CBP didn't misapply the substantial evidence standard in the investigation, contrary to the importers' claims. Baker said the companies conflated "evidence" with "concrete proof."
International trade attorney Benjamin Bay has moved from Schagrin Associates to The Bristol Group, as of counsel, according to his LinkedIn page. At Schagrin, Bay focused on antidumping and countervailing duty litigation along with Section 232 and 301 proceedings. Notices at the Court of International Trade confirmed Bay's departure from Schagrin.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 29 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade granted U.S. steel company Nucor Corp.'s bid to dismiss its suit on the 2020 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea. Nucor launched the suit to contest the Commerce Department's finding that electricity in South Korea that was provided for less than adequate remuneration conferred no benefit (see 2304070054). Nucor claimed that the agency was required to verify questionnaire responses from the South Korean government regarding the provision of the electricity (Nucor Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00058).