The question of whether the Commerce Department has the statutory authority to conduct expedited reviews in countervailing duty investigations constitutes a "major question" that requires explicit delegation from Congress as established in the Supreme Court's West Virginia v. EPA decision, the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations said in a supplemental brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 22 (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1021).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Feb. 22 on AD/CVD proceedings:
CBP announced an Enforce and Protect Act investigation on whether LTT International Trading evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on quartz surface products from China, according to a recently released notice. CBP determined there was reasonable suspicion of evasion by LTT and imposed interim measures along with formal notice of initiation of the investigation.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Alternative characteristics used by the Commerce Department that were supplied by antidumping duty respondent LG Chem to set control numbers (CONNUMs) in an AD investigation had no relationship to actual prices and costs, and are distortive and create the potential for manipulation, AD petitioner The Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers said in a Feb. 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade (The Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers v. U.S., CIT # 23-00010).
Plaintiff Risen Energy Co. will appeal a December 2022 Court of International Trade opinion involving the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. Per a Feb. 21 notice, Risen will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the proceeding, the trade court upheld Commerce's surrogate value picks for silver paste, a solar cell input, backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate and its decision to use partial neutral facts available instead of adverse facts available (see 2301050026) (Risen Energy Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 20-03743).
A Commerce remand determination on welded carbon steel pipes and tubes should be upheld by the Court of International Trade despite a separate Commerce remand redetermination that dual-stenciled pipe and tube is not covered by an antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes, the government argued in a brief filed Feb. 17 (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company, Limited v. United States, CIT # 21-00627).
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.
"Post hoc" arguments from the Commerce Department and BlueScope Steel that the Australian exporter's deduction of antidumping duties from a transfer price was not a reimbursement of antidumping duties are contradicted by documents that confirm a deduction of the duties from the price BlueScope Steel charged to an affiliated importer, plaintiff-appellant U.S. Steel Corp. argued in a Feb. 17 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2078).
The U.S. on Feb. 17 filed a customs penalty case against importer Fortune Energy, saying that the company falsely declared its aluminum extrusions as not subject to antidumping and countervailing duties when they should have been entered as Type 03. Alleging negligent violations of Section 1592, the government seeks a $120,004.30 penalty, based on double the amount of duties avoided by the importer (U.S. v. Fortune Energy, CIT # 23-00040).