The Commerce Department illegally reversed its initial decision that lemon juice exporter Louis Dreyfus Co. was not affiliated with its primary fresh lemon supplier on the grounds that the company had no close supplier relationship with the lemon grower, U.S. company Ventura Coastal argued in a Feb. 16 complaint at the Court of International Trade. In the complaint, Ventura also railed against Commerce's decision to exclude certain administrative expenses pertaining to services provided by Louis Dreyfus' parent company or affiliated holding companies from the exporter's general and administrative expense rate calculation (Ventura Coastal v. United States, CIT # 23-00009).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential Feb. 17 order partially granted the U.S. motion to dismiss an antidumping duty case brought by Cambodian mattress makers. In the order, Judge Gary Katzmann also partially granted a motion for judgment from the plaintiffs, led by Best Mattresses International Co. Katzmann gave the litigants until Feb. 23 to review the opinion for confidential information (Best Mattresses International Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00281).
The Commerce Department gave a further explanation as to why its significant changes practice pertaining to successorship applies in a countervailing duty changed circumstances review where the predecessor company was not individually examined. Submitting remand results on Feb. 16 to the Court of International Trade, Commerce cited its standard established in the 2009 Pasta from Turkey CVD CCR to claim that it will make an affirmative successorship finding "only where there is no evidence of significant changes in the requesting party's operations, ownership, corporate or legal structure." This was not the case with plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products' acquisition of Rayonier A.M. Canada's (RYAM's) lumber mills, the agency said (GreenFirst Forest Products v. United States, CIT # 22-00097).
The Commerce Department improperly used only one mandatory respondent in an antidumping duty investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Feb. 16 opinion. Citing a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that held Commerce may not use just one respondent where multiple exporters have requested a review, Judge Timothy Stanceu sent back the agency's respondent selection decision. The judge also blasted Commerce's use of an adverse facts available rate, taken from the petitioner after the one respondent backed out of the investigation, which the agency used for the non-individually selected respondents and the all-others rate.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Feb. 17 on AD/CVD proceedings:
U.S. steelmakers Nucor, Steel Dynamics, SSAB Enterprises and Cleveland-Cliffs should not be allowed to intervene in a case challenging the International Trade Commission's decision not to review an antidumping injury proceeding, plaintiff Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari argued in a series of three Feb. 15 briefs at the Court of International Trade (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. United States, CIT # 22-00349).
An Enforce and Protect Act finding of evasion against Blue Pipe Steel Center should not be decided on by the Court of International Trade while the underlying scope issue is still on appeal, argued the government in a Feb. 15 motion at the Court of International Trade. DOJ asked the court to deny a motion for judgment from Blue Pipe, or alternatively, defer its decision until after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit resolves the scope issue (Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 21-00081).
The Court of International Trade properly dismissed importer Rimco's challenge to antidumping and countervailing duty challenge for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 15 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While the importer filed its case under Section 1581(a), the true home for the action is Section 1581(c) since it challenges the final AD/CVD rates set by the Commerce Department. "The decision of what rate to apply is Commerce’s alone and, for that reason, the claims should have been brought as 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) challenges," the brief said (Rimco v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2079).
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 15 confidential opinion granted exporter Oman Fasteners' motion for a preliminary injunction in an antidumping case, enjoining the U.S. from "taking any action to enforce, implement, or execute" the duties set by the Commerce Department on steel nails from Oman. Judge M. Miller Baker also barred CBP from collecting AD duty cash deposits on the nails after Oman Fasteners argued that the 154.33% adverse facts available rate set as the cash deposit mark would bankrupt the company (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 16 opinion sent back the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation into wind towers from Spain. In the investigation, Commerce picked only one mandatory respondent, hitting it with a 73% adverse facts available rate taken from the petitioner after the company backed out of the investigation. The agency used this rate for the non-individually selected respondents and the all-others rate. Judge Timothy Stanceu, criticizing the "limited and peculiar" situation the agency set up for itself, sent back Commerce's decision to pick only one respondent and use the AFA rate for the all-others margin.