The International Trade Commission incorrectly found that imports of cut-to-length plate from Brazil did not threaten domestic producers, in its five-year reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate, domestic producer Cleveland-Cliffs said in a March 31 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade (Cleveland-Cliffs v. U.S., CIT # 23-00050).
Brazilian honey producer Supermel didn't fail to provide information to the Commerce Department during an antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Brazil and the agencyt's subsequent use of adverse facts available was incorrect, Supermel said in an April 4 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Apiario Diamente Comercial Exportadora v. U.S., CIT # 22-00185).
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.
The Court of International Trade on April 3 again sent back Commerce’s third remand redetermination in an antidumping duty investigation on steel nails from Taiwan.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices April 4 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Entries of dual-stenciled pipe made before Commerce initiated a scope inquiry should be out of scope of an antidumping duty order on circular welded pipe, regardless of a pending appeal of that determination, Blue Pipe said in its March 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Blue Pipe also continued to argue that all of its imported pipe is not within scope. Even if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit finds the evasion determination was lawful, Blue Pipe asked it to overturn CBP’s decision to apply the evasion determination to entries made before Commerce initiated its scope inquiry (Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00081).
The Commerce Department legally used the expected method to calculate the antidumping duty rate for non-individually examined respondents in the administrative review of the AD order on steel nails from Taiwan, the agency told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a reply brief. The agency used the total adverse facts available rate for two non-cooperative respondents as the all-others rate (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2128).
A recent appellate court ruling requiring the Commerce Department to pick more than one mandatory respondent in certain antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings doesn’t apply to all cases, the agency said. Commerce said "case-specific circumstances" free it of that obligation.
The Court of International Trade on April 3 again sent back Commerce’s third remand redetermination in an antidumping duty investigation of certain steel nails from Taiwan. Judge Claire Kelly ruled Commerce appeared to have misinterpreted a previous ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that asked Commerce to better support its reasoning for using simple averages despite citing contradictory literature in previous cases.