The Commerce Department illegally expanded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China by "reading ambiguity into the scope language when there is none," plaintiffs Vietnam Finewood, Far East American and Liberty Woods International argued in a Dec. 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The scope language clearly states there is only one category of in-scope product -- hardwood and decorative plywood -- although the U.S. says there are two general types -- hardwood and decorative plywood and certain veneered panels -- though the latter category is "not in the scope language at all," the plaintiffs said (Vietnam Finewood Company Limited v. U.S., CIT Consol. #22-00049).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 30 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should reject a motion for a preliminary injunction against cash deposits in an antidumping duty case since the plaintiffs "provide no probative evidence" for the accuracy of the claims in the declarations submitted in support for the claim of irreparable harm, the U.S. argued in a Dec. 28 reply brief. Further, the plaintiffs overstate their case on the merits and overlook parts of the record that cut against its position, the government said (Grupo Acerero v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00202).
CBP is empowered to make its own scope determinations when evaluating antidumping and countervailing duty evasions, and the Court of International Trade should therefore sustain a determination made by CBP regarding steel grating from China, the government argued in a Dec. 23 brief at the Court of International Trade. The government response comes eight months after a motion for judgment filed by importer Ikadan System USA and manufacturer Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co. (see 2204260079) because of a voluntary remand (Ikadan System USA v. United States, CIT # 21-00592).
The Commerce Department violated the law by changing the date of sale for antidumping respondent Octal's U.S. sales from the dates reported by the exporter, the company argued in a Dec. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce should have used the date when the relevant price index was published, as reported by the respondent, rather than the invoice date for the date of sale. The result of the switch was a 3.96% dumping margin for the exporter (Octal v. U.S., CIT # 22-00352).
The International Trade Commission and Commerce Department prematurely carried out its second sunset review of the antidumping duty order on stilbenic optical brightening agents from China and Taiwan, which led to the revocation of the orders, U.S. manufacturer Archroma argued in a Dec. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Archroma v. U.S. Department of Commerce, CIT #22-00354).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 28 on AD/CVD proceedings:
A recent Court of International Trade opinion on the use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty case "addresses nearly identical facts" as in an AD case brought by plaintiffs Meihua Group International Trading and Xinjiang Meihua Amina Acid Co. (Meihua), the plaintiffs said in a Dec. 22 notice of supplemental authority. The recent CIT case, Saha Thai Steel Pipe v. U.S., saw the court rule that the Commerce Department improperly used AFA since the agency failed to notify the respondent about the supposed deficiencies in its submissions (see 2212020060) (Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00069).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 28 granted exporter Oman Fasteners' motion to expedite briefing on its bid for a preliminary injunction in an antidumping duty case, after the company said the "punitive" duties would put it out of business. Judge Miller Baker was assigned to the case and quickly agreed to the ramped-up briefing schedule, ordering the government to file a reply to the PI motion by Jan. 10, 2023, and telling Oman Fasteners to file any reply by Jan. 17, 2023 (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).