A group of Chinese exporters filed two complaints at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's final results in the 2020 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from China. The parties object to Commerce's use of adverse facts available over the alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP) and the benchmark for the sale of primary aluminum for less than adequate remuneration (Yinbang Clad Material Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00291) (Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00290).
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.
The rehearing motion from plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case, led by Ellwood City Forge, "appears to be little more than an impermissible attempt to relitigate an argument" already dispatched by the Court of International Trade, Judge Stephen Vaden held in a Nov. 8 opinion. Ellwood City sought reconsideration of the court's order tossing the challenge to the Commerce Department's failure to conduct on-site verification during an antidumping review, given that the plaintiffs failed to broach the topic administratively. Vaden said that Ellwood City misunderstood "the nexus between futility" and the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Nov. 8 on AD/CVD proceedings:
CBP did not do what it told the Court of International Trade it was going to do on remand in an Enforce and Protect Act case, plaintiffs Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co. argued in Nov. 4 comments on CBP's remand. The agency told the court it would consider the Commerce Department's scope ruling, which found that Ikadan and Gaosai's imports are within the scope of the relevant antidumping and countervailing duty orders, and clarify its decision to ensure the court is given a thorough analysis of the relevant law and evidence. Instead, CBP failed to address any of the plaintiffs' arguments on remand, the brief said (Ikadan System USA v. United States, CIT #21-00592).
The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 8 opinion denied a motion for judgment from plaintiffs, led by Ellwood City Forge Co., in a case challenging the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation into forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany. The plaintiffs challenged Commerce's decision to use verification in lieu of on-site verification. Judge Stephen Vaden ruled that Ellwood City failed to exhaust its administrative remedies over this challenge, thus denying Ellwood City's motion.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Nov. 7 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Plaintiff AA Metals cannot prove that its Chinese-origin aluminum coils are outside the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China, petitioner Texarkana Aluminum argued in a Nov. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade in an Enforce and Protect Act case. The plaintiff "does not -- and cannot -- dispute" the finding that the physical dimensions of its product match the description laid out in the orders' scope, the brief said (AA Metals v. United States, CIT #22-00051).
Antidumping duty petitioners' "notice of supplemental authority" in a case over whether Amsted Rail Co.'s former counsel violated ethical rules in an injury proceeding is neither supplemental nor an authority, plaintiffs in the matter, led by ARC, argued in a Nov. 3 reply brief. The supplemental authority, which included a declaration from Georgetown University Law Center ethics professor Michael Frisch and accused the plaintiffs of abusing the litigation system, could have been filed "contemporaneous with the [petitioner's] motion to vacate the temporary restraining order," and it is not an authority since "it is not a statute, regulation, or decisional law," the motion said (Amsted Rail v. ITC , CIT #22-00307).
Chief Judge Kimberly Moore at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, during Nov. 3 oral argument, questioned plaintiff-appellant M S International's (MSI's) position that the Commerce Department failed to include quartz surface product (QSP) fabricators as part of the domestic industry for quartz surface products when initiating the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on QSPs from India (Pokarna Engineered Stone Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1077).