The Commerce Department should have considered alternatives to account for an antidumping duty respondent's distorted costs even when faced with U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit precedent barring particular market situation adjustments to the sales-below-cost test, Ellwood City Forge argued in comments at the Court of International Trade. One alternative would have been for Commerce to adjust for the PMS under the sales-below-cost test because the relevant exporter's records don't accurately reflect the exporter's costs, the brief said (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00077).
Japan and China agreed to enter into arbitration under the World Trade Organization's Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Agreement, an alternative to the Appellate Body, related to a spat over China's antidumping duties on stainless steel products from Japan. Submitting a notice of agreed procedures for arbitration, Japan and China said they will take to arbitration, given that there are less than three AB members.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices April 17 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade granted a group of Chinese exporters' motions to dismiss two cases contesting the Commerce Department's final results in the 2020 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from China. The case's complaints challenged the use of adverse facts available over the alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program and the benchmark for the sale of primary aluminum for less than adequate remuneration (see 2211080022). Daniel Cannistra, counsel for the plaintiffs, said it was decided that there was no more interest in the cases (Yinbang Clad Material Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00291, and Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00292).
Federal Circuit Says Exporter Owned by Labor Union Didn't Rebut Presumption of Chinese State Control
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 14 upheld the Commerce Department's finding that antidumping duty respondent Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. (ZMC) did not rebut the presumption of Chinese state government control, barring its claim to a separate rate in an AD review. Judges Sharon Prost, Jimmie Reyna and Todd Hughes ruled the decision was reasonable because a labor union, which is subject to Chinese government control, is the majority shareholder of ZMC "and has overlapping membership with the employee stock-ownership committee" (ESOC).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices April 14 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department dropped the antidumping duty rate for three separate rate respondents in the administrative review of the 2016-17 AD duty order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof from China. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade, Commerce cut the rates from 82.05% to 41.03% following separate litigation at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Bosun Tools Co. v. U.S. (Danyang Weiwang Tools Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 19-00006).
The Court of International Trade should sustain the International Trade Commission's critical circumstances determination from its investigation on raw honey from Vietnam, the American Honey Producers Association and Sioux Honey Association said in an April 10 response at the Court of International Trade. The commission asked the court to deny a December motion for judgment by Sweet Harvest Foods and three other plaintiffs challenging the ITC's finding (Sweet Harvest Foods v. U.S., CIT # 22-00188).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Utah did not make it clear whether it meant to dismiss only the first amended complaint or the entire case in a dispute over whether U.S. mattress producers fraudulently submitted two antidumping duty petitions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit said. Remanding the issue to the Utah district court, a three-judge panel at the 10th Circuit said it was unclear whether the trial court's dismissal order in the case is a "final appealable decision" (CVB v. Corsicana Mattress Co., 10th Cir. # 22-4054).