The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 18 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade granted exporter M S International's motion to dismiss three of its cases contesting the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation on quartz surface products from Turkey. No reason was provided by M S International's counsel as to why the cases were being dropped (M S International v. United States, CIT # 20-00137).
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's deduction of President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from an exporter's U.S. price in an antidumping duty proceeding. Judge Jane Restani said the issue had already been resolved by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in favor of Commerce. The judge's one-page opinion on the 2019-20 administrative review of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products from Turkey is identical to the court's order two days prior, concluding a similar suit also brought by exporter Borusan Mannesmann on the 2020-21 review of the AD order (see 2305160037) (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 22-00057).
Commerce correctly used adverse facts available against Korean exporter SeAH Steel for its failure to cooperate in a countervailing duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Korea, DOJ said in its May 16 reply at the Court of International Trade. The government argued that Commerce correctly found that the Export-Import Bank of Korea's (KEXIM's) Performance Guarantee program provided a countervailable benefit using AFA (SeAH Steel Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00338).
A critical circumstances determination on imports of raw honey from Vietnam issued by the International Trade Commission should be remanded to the ITC due to a "flawed misreading of the statute," Sweet Harvest Foods and four other consolidated plaintiffs said in a May 16 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. In addition to misinterpreting the statute, Sweet Harvest said that the government's case endorses the ITC's use of outdated inventory data in assessing whether the entries were likely to “undermine seriously” an antidumping duty order to be issued in the future (Sweet Harvest Foods v. United States, CIT # 22-00188).
The Commerce Department failed to rely on the best available information when setting surrogate values for antidumping duty respondent Risen Energy Co.'s backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) inputs in the AD administrative review on solar cells from China in 2017-18, Risen argued in an opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Risen also challenged the Commerce's calculation of the company's financial ratios (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 17 on AD/CVD proceedings:
American Iron and Steel Institute CEO Kevin Dempsey thanked Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo for continuing to enforce 25% tariffs on imported steel from most countries, authorized under the Section 232 national security rationale.
The Court of International Trade should not again remand an antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany because respondent Ellwood City Forge failed to exhaust its administrative remedies regarding the margin program before it filed suit at CIT, intervenor Edelstahl Siegen said in its May 15 remand comments (Ellwood City Forge v. U.S., CIT # 21-00077).
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's final results in the antidumping duty administrative review on standard pipe from Turkey for 2020-21 after the issue in the case brought by exporter Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret was resolved by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellate court ruled that Commerce can legally deduct President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from an exporter's U.S. price in AD proceedings (see 2303150035). Borusan had raised the issue in a separate case at CIT (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 23-00005).