The Court of International Trade properly required Commerce to drop its reliance on an Enforce and Protect Act case to reject third-country sales in an antidumping duty review, antidumping duty respondent Z.A. Sea Foods (ZASF) said in a June 5 response brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Z.A. Sea Foods v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 2023-1469).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, during June 6 oral arguments, questioned countervailing duty petitioner Nucor Corp.'s claims against the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government did not provide a countervailable subsidy via its provision of electricity in the CVD investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. Responding to Nucor's argument that Commerce should have found the actual cost of electricity sold to the CVD respondents, Judge Raymond Chen said this "seems so unrealistically granular it doesn't make any sense" (POSCO v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1525).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 5 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Plaintiff-appellants Deacero and Deacero USA moved to dismiss their appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit challenging the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on rebar products from Mexico. Both the U.S. and petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition consented to the motion. Deacero launched the suit to challenge the Commerce Department's treatment of Section 232 duties paid by Deacero as U.S. import duties, deducting them from the company's U.S. price in the dumping calculation (Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1486).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should disregard the government's procedural arguments in a case on whether Vandewater International's steel branch outlets fall within the scope of the antidumping duty order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China, importer Smith-Cooper International (SCI) argued in a reply brief (Vandewater International v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).
The Commerce Department correctly followed a Court of International Trade remand order when it declined to use a mistakenly chosen respondent's individually calculated rate in its calculation of the non-selected respondents rate, instead basing the non-selected rate on the individual rate for a single mandatory respondent, DOJ said in its May 31 remand comments at the Court of International Trade (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry v. U.S., CIT # 20-03885).
The judicial and administrative decisions cited by U.S. and antidumping petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire to defend the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against exporter Unicatch Industrial Co. do not apply to Unicatch's court challenge, Unicatch said in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Commerce relied on AFA against Unicatch for failing to submit a complete cost reconciliation in the form requested by the agency, hitting the exporter with a 78.17% dumping rate (Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2241).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 2 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Solar cell exporters JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co. and JingAo Solar Co. objected to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's order saying that it will reform the caption to designate the companies as appellees. JA Solar instead asked to remain a plaintiff since it supports appellant Risen Energy even though it did not itself file a notice of appeal. "Second, JA Solar will not be filing or joining any brief in this proceeding, nor does it intend to participate in oral argument," the brief said. The suit is challenging the Commerce Department's surrogate values for silver paste and use partial neutral facts available in the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China (see 2301050026) (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).
The Commerce Department correctly determined that Korean exporter SeAH Steel failed to cooperate fully in a countervailing duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Korea because SeAH waited until verification to provide information that should have been submitted in response to an initial questionnaire, a group of defendant-intervenors led by Borusan Mannesmann Pipe said in their May 30 response brief. Because SeAH failed to act to the best of its ability, Commerce's application of adverse facts available was warranted, Borusan said (SeAH Steel v. U.S., CIT # 22-00338).