The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 2 order remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, pursuant to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's mandate in the case (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, CIT # 19-00069).
The Commerce Department's recent remand decision not to treat a countervailing duty respondent's supplier as a cross-owned input supplier is relevant for exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret's case at the Court of International Trade, the exporter argued. Filing a notice of supplemental authority on Feb. 2, Kaptan said that Commerce's remand decision in Nucor Corp. v. U.S. is "at odds with Commerce's analysis in the instant case" (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00565).
Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari in a Feb. 2 brief at the Court of International Trade railed against U.S. Steel's bid to intervene in a case challenging the International Trade Commission's decision not to review an antidumping injury proceeding. The exporter said that U.S. Steel Corp. filed for intervention under the wrong legal standard since the case was established under Section 1581(i), the trade court's "residual" jurisdiction, and not Section 1581(c). Even if this point were irrelevant, Erdemir said the court should still prevent U.S. Steel (USSC) from intervening in the case since it was not a proper party to the underlying proceeding (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. United States, CIT # 22-00349).
The U.S. and the Wind Tower Trade Coalition failed to show that the Commerce Department's findings in a countervailing duty case on wind towers from Canada were supported by substantial evidence, plaintiff-appellants Quebec and Canada and respondent Marmen Energie argued in a Feb. 1 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Quebec v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1807).
The U.S. expressed some positive views on the first decision of the World Trade Organization's multiparty interim appeal arbitration arrangement (MPIA) concerning Colombia's antidumping duties on frozen fries from various EU countries. Speaking during the Dispute Settlement Body's Jan. 27 meeting, the U.S. said it welcomes the MPIA's "willingness to adopt an interpretation" it sees as consistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement, "even and especially if the interpretation differs from the Appellate Body's erroneous views."
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Feb. 2 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case, led by Catfish Farmers of America (CFA), failed to argue one count of its complaint in its opening brief, so the Court of International Trade should consider the issue abandoned, defendant-intervenor Nam Viet Corp. argued in a Feb. 1 opposition brief (Catfish Farmers of America, et al. v. United States, CIT # 22-00125).
Antidumping duty petitioner Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee will appeal a December 2022 Court of International Trade decision on the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from India. Per the Feb. 1 notice of appeal, the petitioner will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court upheld Commerce's remand results dropping the agency's reliance on an Enforce and Protect Act case to reject third-country sales to calculate normal value (see 2212070036) (Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited v. United States, CIT # 21-00031).
The Commerce Department stuck by its decision not to investigate the alleged off-peak sale of electricity for less than adequate remuneration and not to treat POSCO Plantec -- an affiliate of countervailing duty respondent POSCO -- as a cross-owned input supplier of POSCO. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 31, Commerce said that the subsidy allegation over the provision of off-peak electricity "did not provide sufficient evidence of a benefit for Commerce to initiate on the allegation," and that the inputs provided by POSCO Planted were not mainly dedicated to downstream product production (Nucor Corp. v. United States, CIT # 21-00182).