CBP is reversing its finding that six companies evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, after finding it did not consider important evidence when it affirmed the original evasion finding in an administrative review, in remand results filed Jan. 4 at the Court of International Trade (H&E Home Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT # 21-00337).
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.
CIT Upholds CVD Rate Over Commerce's Failure to Verify EBCP Non-Use Based on US Buyer's Lack of Info
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 10 order upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case involving the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. On remand, Commerce said that because one of respondent Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic's U.S. customers did not participate in the review's virtual verification, the agency didn't have enough information to verify Wuxi Tianran did not benefit from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The respondent conceded that Commerce complied with the trade court's remand orders. Given the lack of any challenge, Judge Jane Restani upheld the case.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Jan. 10 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The antidumping and countervailing duty processes insure that proceedings are accurate and based on complete information, a Government Accountability Office report found. The report, released Jan. 9, was commissioned at the request of Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, in order to examine concerns that domestic companies may sometimes file petitions without merit to obstruct domestic market competition, the GAO said.
CBP has found sufficient evidence to initiate an investigation on whether LE North America (doing business as LE Surfaces) evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on quartz surface products from China and imposed interim measures, it said in a notice dated Dec. 20 and released on Jan. 9.
Plaintiffs Ellwood City Forge, Ellwood National Steel, Ellwood Quality Steel and A. Finkl & Sons will appeal a Court of International Trade decision on the Commerce Department's use of a questionnaire instead of on-site verification in an antidumping duty case. The plaintiffs will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to the Jan. 6 notice of appeal. In the case, which concerns the antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Italy, the trade court said the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies on the verification question (see 2206140044). The plaintiffs then unsuccessfully sought reconsideration of the issue -- a move the court deemed to be an impermissible attempt to relitigate the case (Ellwood City Forge v. U.S., CIT #21-00073).
The Commerce Department violated the law when it carried out a bona fides analysis of separate rate respondent Dalian Hualing Wood Co. in an antidumping duty review, the exporter argued in a Jan. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The move "was contrary to its precedent, practice, was arbitrary" and not supported by evidence, the brief said. Commerce further erred by treating Hualing's sale as non-bona fide in the antidumping duty review while treating it as bona fide in the countervailing duty review (Dalian Hualing Wood Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00334).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges questioned the limits of the finished merchandise exclusion in antidumping and countervailing duty orders during Jan. 9 oral argument in a case over whether solar panel roof mounts fall within the scope of the AD/CVD orders on aluminum extrusions from China. While Judges Pauline Newman, Raymond Chen and Tiffany Cunningham questioned plaintiff-appellant China Custom Manufacturing's contention that its solar mounts are a finished product even though they are incorporated into a larger downstream product, the judges further probed the U.S. claims against this point with equal vigor (China Custom Manufacturing v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1345).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 10 upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case involving the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. On remand, Commerce said that because one of respondent Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic's U.S. customers did not participate in the review's virtual verification, the agency didn't have enough information to verify Wuxi Tianran did not benefit from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The respondent conceded that Commerce complied with the trade court's remand orders.