The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 1 opinion rejected the U.S.' motion to partially dismiss the alternative claims of jurisdiction in a case over the Commerce Department's assessment of antidumping duties. Judge Gary Katzmann said the question of the opinion was whether a party can dismiss an alternatively pleaded ground of jurisdiction. The judge said that since the U.S.'s motion "as styled is not the proper vehicle," the motion is denied.
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 2 opinion found that the Commerce Department illegally used adverse facts available on antidumping respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. Saha Thai omitted sales of line pipe from its U.S. sales database, claiming that line pipe is not within the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Judge Stephen Vaden found Commerce did not notify the respondent that its sales database was deficient, remanding the use of AFA. If Commerce continues to use AFA on remand, it must ensure it complies with the notice requirement, the judge ruled.
The Commerce Department is setting new antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam -- though collection is on hold per a presidential proclamation and subsequent Commerce regulation -- after finding imports from the four countries are circumventing AD/CVD orders on solar cells from China in the preliminary determination of an anti-circumvention inquiry.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 1 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Nov. 30 in an antidumping case brought by Hitachi Energy USA after it denied the plaintiff-appellee's rehearing bid. In a May opinion, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Commerce Department improperly used adverse facts available on respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. over its reporting of service-related revenue. The court said Hyundai had the right to supplement the record and that Commerce can't claim the company shirked its obligations in the review (see 2205240028). Hitachi, successor to one of the original antidumping duty petitioners in the case, filed for a rehearing. In its response, the government said that it takes no position regarding the merits of the petition itself, but does argue that the court should decline the rehearing because the appeal "does not involve a matter of exceptional importance" (see 2208100008) (Hitachi Energy USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 20-2114).
CBP erred when it assessed antidumping and countervailing duties on imported sinks and kits from Taiwan as if they had originated from China, importer and seller RH Peterson said in a Nov. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade (RH Peterson Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00099).
CBP cannot rely on country trade patterns as specific evidence for evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties in Enforce and Protect Act proceedings, importer Skyview Cabinets USA argued in a Nov. 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. CBP also erred by relying on statements from a corporate investigator, paid for by the alleger in the EAPA case, that are "inconsistent with the record." While Masterbrand tries to "downplay" facts presented by Skyview by using words such as "discrepancies, deficiencies, inconsistencies, and omissions," CBP never investigated any of these perceived discrepancies as required by law, Skyview said (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, CIT #22-00080).
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 1 opinion denied the U.S.' partial motion to dismiss a case challenging the Commerce Department's decisions to issue liquidation instructions after an antidumping review based on its automatic assessment policy and to set an effective date for a duty determined through litigation. The plaintiff, Goodluck India, designated Sections 1581(c) and (i) as alternative grounds of jurisdiction for its claims. The U.S. sought to partially dismiss the complaint for its claims of jurisdiction under Section 1581(c). Judge Gary Katzmann said that since the motion "as styled is not the proper vehicle," the motion is denied.
World Trade Organization members addressed a "record number of trade concerns" during a Nov. 24-25 meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods, the WTO said. Topics included how the council could implement some of the outcomes of the 12th Ministerial Conference: the work program on electronic commerce, the WTO's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and WTO reform. The committee also wanted to continue talks on the Least-Developed Countries Group's proposal for some countries to graduate from LDC status. The next council meeting is April 3-4.
The Court of International Trade in a confidential Nov. 28 opinion sent back parts and upheld parts of the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Vietnam. In a letter issued to the litigants, Judge Timothy Reif gave the parties until close of business Dec. 5 to review any confidential information to be bracketed in the opinion. In the complaint, the plaintiffs, led by Ashley Furniture Industries, challenged Commerce's reliance on Emirates Sleep Systems' financial statements in its decision to use Indian Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7320.90.90 as a surrogate value for pocket coil innerspring units and the agency's refusal to list Ashley Furniture Trading Co. and Ashley Furniture Industries as eligible for the dumping rates given to certain companies where AFTC and AFI reinvoiced the goods before import (Ashley Furniture Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00283).