There is no basis for the Court of International Trade to reconsider its decision to uphold the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis (DPA) to root out "masked" dumping or its inclusion of respondent SeAH Steel Corp.'s inventory valuation losses in its general and administrative (G&A) expense calculation, the U.S. said. Replying to SeAH's motion for rehearing at CIT, the government argued that since Commerce has found on remand in the key Stupp Corp. v. U.S. case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit called into question the use of the Cohen's d test that the agency properly used the test, there are no grounds to contest CIT's move to uphold the DPA (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT #19-00086).
World Trade Organization members are lagging in submitting required subsidy notifications, the chair of the WTO ComEighty-nine members still have yet to submit their 2021 subsidy notifications by the mid-2021 deadline, Kerrlene Wills of Guyana, the committee chair, said. Another 76 members have not yet submitted their 2019 subsidy notifications, and 65 have not submitted their 2017 notifications.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Oct. 31 on AD/CVD proceedings:
CBP announced that it has opened a formal Enforce and Protect Act investigation into whether Zinus evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on chassis and subassemblies from China and has imposed interim measures, according to an Oct. 25 notice. The investigation was launched on July 20, following allegations by CIMC Intermodal Equipment LLC (CIMC) that Pitts Enterprises, Inc., classified imported chassis as products of Vietnam, without disclosing subassembly components of Chinese-origin.
The U.S. is using a spat over whether surety company American Home Assurance Co. can use a laches defense in a customs penalty case "as a red herring" to turn the Court of International Trade's attention away from the surety's statute of limitations defense, AHAC argued in an Oct. 27 reply brief. The matter is a "straight-forward statute of limitations case" since the U.S. brought the action seeking uncollected antidumping duties more than six years after the right of action began, and any attack on the defendant's affirmative defense of laches is merely a distraction, the brief said (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., CIT #20-00175).
CBP's decision not to pay out interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, on collected antidumping and countervailing duties violates the plain language of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, groups of plaintiff-appellants argued in two opening briefs in two different cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. One brief, penned by appellants led by Hilex Poly Co. and American Drew, said that even if the law was ambiguous, CBP has failed to exercise any authority "in a way that deserves deference" (Hilex Poly Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2106) (Adee Honey Farms v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2105).
The Commerce Department abused its discretion by denying respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes' late-filed submission in an antidumping duty review while giving itself a far greater delay, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 28 opinion. Ajmal claimed that COVID-19-related difficulties caused the less-than-two-hour delay. While Judge Jane Restani ruled that it could be considered reasonable for Commerce to have rejected the filing on these grounds, the judge said that the agency abused its discretion by ignoring its own actions, which caused a far more considerable delay in the proceeding.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Oct. 28 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department illegally valued the factors of production (FOPs) of the intermediate product for a refrigerant, anhydrous hydrofluoric acid (AHF), rather than valuing AHF's reported FOPs, plaintiffs led by respondent Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co. argued in an Oct. 25 motion for judgment. Typically, Commerce only values the intermediate input directly if valuing the FOPs might lead to an inaccurate result. That was not the case here, since the record shows that there was no need to differentiate between Sanmei's usage of self-made AHF and purchased AHF since none of the antidumping duty review period's U.S. sales were made with purchased AHF, the brief said (Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00103).