The Commerce Department made no corrections to the final results of a 2020-2021 administrative review of an antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate resin from Oman after considering a ministerial error allegation by plaintiff Octal, DOJ told the Court of International Trade in a March 13 motion. DOJ had asked the Court to allow the Commerce Department to consider the allegation and, if necessary, to amend its final results. Commerce found that Octal untimely filed its allegation (Octal, et al. v. United States, CIT # 22-00352).
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 Commerce Department dropped its particular market situation adjustment for the sales-below-cost test on remand at the Court of International Trade in an antidumping duty case on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany, resulting in a zero percent AD rate for respondent BGH Edelstahl Siegen, if the rate is sustained (Ellwood City Forge Co., et al. v. United States, CIT # 21-00077).
The Commerce Department can legally deduct Section 232 duties from an exporter's U.S. price in antidumping proceedings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled March 15. Judges Richard Taranto, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham held that President Donald Trump's Proclamation 9705 imposing the duties made clear the tariffs were meant to be added to any applicable antidumping duties. The appellate court also clarified that this ruling applies only to Proclamation 9705 duties and not all presidential action taken under Section 232.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices March 14 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued two mandates for two recent opinions, one that upheld the Commerce Department's rejection of an untimely filing in an antidumping duty case and another that revoked a countervailing duty order (Trinity Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1329) (PT. Kenertec Power System v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1408).
The Commerce Department is required by its own policies to use the country with the best data as the surrogate country in antidumping duty proceedings, the Catfish Farmers of America and other plaintiffs said in a March 10 reply brief. Although Commerce argued the AD laws didn't require it to look into whether Indonesia offered "superior" data for the 2019-20 review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, the Catfish Farmers pointed to Import Administration Policy Bulletin 04.1, which says if more than one country meets the statutory requirements for surrogates, that Commerce "will rely on values from the country that provides the highest quality data" (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 22-00125).
The Commerce Department should not have granted an non-cooperative Vietnamese frozen fish exporter a separate antidumping rate during an AD review,Green Farms Seafood argued in its March 10 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Green Farms Seafood v. U.S., CIT # 22-00092). Commerce's subsequent averaging of the adverse facts available separate rate with other rates in the review to set a rate for the non-individually investigated companies resulted in Green Farms getting a rate not reflective of economic reality, Green Farms said.
The International Trade Commission correctly used critical circumstances in its investigation of raw honey from Vietnam, the ITC said in its March 10 response brief at the Court of International Trade. The commission asked the court to affirm its determination and to deny a December motion for judgment by the four plaintiffs, Honey Solutions, Sunland Trading, Export Packers Co. and Sweet Harvest Foods (Sweet Harvest Foods, et al. v. United States, CIT # 22-00188).
The Commerce Department properly included sales of solar cells from China to JA Solar USA from antidumping duty respondent Invertec Solar Energy Corp. as U.S. sales, the Court of International Trade ruled March 10. No party contested Commerce's remand results (JA Solar International v. United States, CIT # 21-00514).