The standard for whether a surrogate financial statement is considered publicly available so it can be used in an antidumping duty proceeding says that "interested parties may independently access the information," the government said in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Ashley Furniture Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00283).
An enriched ammonium sulfate isotope was incorrectly ruled as being within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ammonium sulfate from China, Cambridge Isotope Laboratories argued in an April 28 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Cambridge sued to contest a final scope ruling, issued March 16, which held that NLM-713-10, which consists of an enriched 15N ammonium sulfate isotope, fell within the scope of the orders on ammonium sulfate from China (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. U.S., CIT # 23-00080).
A Mexican rebar exporter says its history of marginal dumping rates and cooperation with Commerce Department proceedings means that the 66.7% adverse facts available rate Commerce assigned it in an antidumping duty administrative review could not reasonably reflect any possible dumping, the exporter, Simec, argued in an April 26 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Grupo Simec, et al. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00202).
The Commerce Department properly used financial statements from Indian company Sundram as the source of surrogate financial data in the antidumping duty investigation on steel nails from Oman, despite evidence the company received countervailable subsidies, the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. After Commerce winnowed potential surrogate companies from 11, the two remaining companies -- Hi-Tech Fastener Manufacturer and Sundram -- received subsidies. Since Sundram's data was contemporaneous with the investigation period and Hi-Tech's was not, Commerce legally went with Sundram, the government said in its reply brief (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1039).
CBP did not adequately justify treating the same evidence differently when it reversed a recent finding on aluminum extrusions from China, the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee told the Court of International Trade. In CBP's remand decision that reversed its finding that six companies evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on the extrusions, the industry organization said CBP used most, if not all, the same evidence "without providing a rational explanation" (H&E Home Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00337).
The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's remand results April 28 after the agency further explained its surrogate value selection for coal-based carbonized materials and the financial statements used to calculate surrogate financial ratios in the 2018-19 antidumping review on activated carbon from China (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00131). Judge Mark Barnett found that Commerce’s selection of Malaysian data to value carbonized material was supported by substantial evidence. While each review is separate, Commerce is not prevented from acting in accord with prior reviews when the present review does not contain new information warranting a departure from prior practice, Barnett said.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. Judges Todd Hughes, Kara Stoll and Leonard Stark ruled that Commerce properly picked Malaysia as the primary surrogate country, valued bituminous coal with a known calorific value using Malaysian Harmonized System subheading 2701.19 and valued bituminous coal with an unknown calorific value using Romanian HS subheading 2701.12. Stark, the author of the opinion, said the appellants, led by Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., failed to exhaust arguments against the valuation of coal tar pitch.
The Court of International Trade granted in part and remanded in part motions by the U.S. and petitioner Florida Tomato Exchange to dismiss challenges to several Commerce Department actions around the antidumping duty investigation on tomatoes from Mexico, and subsequent suspension agreements. Following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion in the case, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said the court has jurisdiction to hear claims challenging the AD investigation, which is under a suspension agreement, but does not have jurisdiction to hear a challenge to Commerce's decision to terminate a suspension agreement.
The Commerce Department extended the deadline to issue its final determinations in the anti-circumvention inquiries concerning solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, until Aug. 17. In a memo dated April 26, Jose Rivera, international trade compliance analyst at Commerce, said that "good cause exists" to give the agency more time, including the "numerous complex methodological issues for which Commerce requires more time to analyze." Rivera added that the agency received around 20 briefs from interested parties in the inquiries.
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on utility scale wind towers from Vietnam, in a confidential opinion. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Timothy Reif gave the parties until May 4 to review the confidential information in the opinion. The trade court previously remanded the case so that Commerce could address evidence in the alleged manipulation of the denominators used in the benefit calculation and to substantiate its conclusion that respondent CS Wind Vietnam didn't import its steel plate, thereby neglecting an import duty exemption subsidy. On remand, the agency said CS Wind Vietnam did not manipulate its margin (see 2210210040) (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, CIT # 20-03692).