The Court of International Trade issued a pair of opinions on March 10. In one, brought by Printing Textiles, Judge Timothy Stanceu dismissed the customs action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The company filed the case under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, challenging CBP's denial of its protests on its Canvas Banner Matisse coated fabric. Printing Textiles said that the entries weren't subject to the antidumping order and that the Commerce Department had initiated a scope request on the company's imports. Stanceu said jurisdiction could have been available under Section 1581(a) or Section 1581(c) should Commerce find the imports to be in the scope of the order.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices March 10 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. replaced its principal counsel in a series of two appeals in an Enforce and Protect Act case over whether Ascension Chemicals, UMD Solutions, Crude Chem Technology and Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps transshipped Chinese xanthan gum through India to avoid antidumping duties. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted the government's unopposed motion to withdraw Kelly Krystyniak and replace her with Elisa Solomon. The Court of International Trade previously dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction since the entries at issue had been liquidated (see 2208180045) (All One God Faith v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).
The Court of International Trade should halt proceedings in an antidumping duty case filed by HiSteel until after the deadline to appeal the trade court's recent decision in Stupp v. U.S., AD petitioner Nucor Tubular Products said in a March 9 motion. In Stupp, CIT said that the Commerce Department adequately addressed all questions raised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the use of the Cohen's d test as part of the differential pricing analysis to root out "masked" dumping (see 2302270049) -- a "virtually identical" issue to one argued in HiSteel's case, Nucor said (HiSteel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00142).
Plaintiff-appellants led by Carbon Activated Tianjin were not required to exhaust their arguments against the use of Malaysian import data under Harmonized System subheading 2708.10 to calculate a surrogate value for coal tar because Commerce used data from the subheading for the first time in the antidumping duty review's final results, counsel for Carbon Activated told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during March 7 oral arguments (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1298).
The Court of International Trade in a March 10 upheld the Commerce Department's final scope decision that antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China cover a type of aluminum sheet AA Metals imported from Turkey. Judge Jane Restani ruled Commerce did not just rely on the plain language of the scope alone but considered various (k)(1) factors. AA Metals claimed it wasn't given a chance to remedy a deficiency on the record, leading the agency to include its imports under the orders. Restani said AA Metals' answers had no such deficiencies and Commerce has no obligation to vet corrections every time it makes a decision in conflict with a party's position.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices March 9 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A Court of International Trade ruling that allowed the Commerce Department to use the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis to root out masked dumping (see 2302270049) should be given weight in a separate case contesting Commerce's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on thermal paper from Germany, DOJ said in a March 7 filing at the Court of International Trade. Matra Americas and intervenor Koehler Paper argued in their September motion for judgment that Commerce’s use of the d test was flawed because it fails to take into account assumptions of sample size, distribution, and variance (see 2209160055) (Matra Americas v. United States, CIT # 21-00632).
The Commerce Department correctly applied adverse facts available to Brazilian honey producer Supermel during an antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Brazil, defendant-intervenors the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association argued in a March 3 response brief at the Court of International Trade. Supermel's December motion for judgment should be tossed because the exporter failed to cooperate in the investigation and was correctly hit with AFA, the intervenors argued (Apiario Diamente Comercial Exportadora v. United States, CIT # 22-00185).