The Court of International Trade granted the Commerce Department's voluntary request for remand for 120 days to review information submitted by antidumping duty respondent Officine Tecnosider on the agency's use of a quarterly cost methodology. Commerce asked for the remand since it said it couldn't find its analysis of the quarterly average prices of steel slab when prepping its reply brief to Officine Tecnosider in a case on the administrative review of the AD order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Italy for 2020-21 (see 2305080066) (Officine Tecnosider v. United States, CIT # 23-00001).
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.
DOJ is seeking nearly $15 million in unpaid customs duties and civil penalties from five Florida importers at the Court of International Trade for alleged evasion of antidumping duties, according to a May 15 complaint (U.S. v. Lexjet, et al., CIT # 23-00105).
CIT Upholds Commerce Finding That Tire Exporter Failed to Rebut Presumption of Chinese State Control
The Court of International Trade on May 16 upheld a finding that exporter Double Coin Holdings failed to rebut the presumption of government control in an antidumping case, sustaining the company's 105.31% China-wide rate in an administrative review on off-the-road tires from China.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 16 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade should stay a case challenging an Enforce and Protect Act finding of evasion while another related case goes through remand, DOJ argued in a May 12 motion. The court previously denied a joint motion to stay the case in September, finding that the claims in the EAPA case were "largely independent of Commerce's scope ruling" (see 2209270026) (Far East American v. U.S., CIT # 22-00213).
The U.S. voiced its opposition to countervailing duty respondent Tau-Ken Temir's bid to make a fourth correction to its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government said TKT's attempt to shoehorn arguments on the Commerce Department's new regulations concerning untimely submitted files violates the limitations on raising new authorities. If new authorities arise after a brief has been filed, the litigant must alert the court via a letter, the government said. TKT tried instead to insert a new argument in its corrections to its opening brief, sidestepping these limitations and "presenting a continually moving target" and impacting the government's ability to respond (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
No good cause exists for the Court of International Trade to grant the Commerce Department another 30 days to file its remand results in an antidumping duty case on wind towers from Spain, exporter Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy said in a reply brief. Commerce filed its motion to extend one day before the parties' comments on the draft remand results were due, claiming that more time is needed for parties to comment and for the agency to analyze the comments (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. United States, CIT # 21-00449).
Importer Files Supreme Court Appeal on CAFC Opinion Requiring Protest Within 180 Days of Liquidation
Importer Acquisition 362, d/b/a Strategic Import Supply (SIS), filed a petition for writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion requiring protests to be filed within 180 days of liquidation and not the date the Commerce Department issues antidumping and countervailing duty instructions to CBP. SIS said that by establishing this requirement, the appellate court eliminated one statutory mechanism under which importers can file protests and encourages "premature, incomplete, sham protest filings" (Acquisition 362 v. U.S., U.S. # 22-1102).
The Commerce Department legally found that exporter Double Coin Holdings failed to rebut the presumption of government control when it levied a 105.31% China-wide rate in the fifth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on off-the-road tires from China, the Court of International Trade ruled. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that absent a statute or regulation governing the presumption of government control in AD cases, "the court lacks a basis to conclude that Commerce acted contrary to law in exercising its broad discretion" by centering its analysis on how Double Coin's government-owned majority shareholder influences the selection and supervision of management.