The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Oct. 11 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department cannot countervail glass purchases since both the Court of International Trade and Commerce have found that glass subsidies are not aluminum extrusions inputs, countervailing duty review respondent Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co. argued in its Oct. 3 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Jangho also argued that CIT illegally allowed Commerce to make a post hoc rationalization as a basis for the finding to countervail glass subsidies (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. 22-2000).
The Commerce Department in Oct. 7 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade dropped its use of adverse facts available pertaining to the use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program for one respondent in a countervailing duty review but not the other mandatory respondent. Commerce found that JA Solar Co., provided enough data to fill gaps left by the Chinese government's failure to provide certain information to prove that its U.S. customers did not benefit from the EBCP while Risen Energy Co. did not (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT #20-03912).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Oct. 7 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Antidumping duty respondent Oman Fasteners will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a case regarding the constructed value calculation in an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Oman, according to an Oct. 6 notice of appeal. The Court of International Trade in August found the Commerce Department justified its switch on remand between surrogate companies, despite calls from the exporter under review to use a different company (see 2208090008) (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., CIT #15-00214).
The International Trade Commission was wrong not to cumulate imports of cold-rolled steel flat products from Brazil with imports from China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. in a five-year sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the products, U.S. company Cleveland-Cliffs argued in an Oct. 5 complaint the Court of International Trade. The ITC further erred by focusing on the likely volume of the Brazilian imports in its cumulation analysis in the injury investigation, resulting in an "impermissible circular" injury analysis, the complaint said (Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00257).
When the Court of International Trade on Sept. 13 ruled that the Commerce Department could use adverse facts available for use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, an appeal of the matter seemed inevitable. The trade court had issued a string of opinions rejecting Commerce's ability to use AFA in this way, and the U.S. had refused to appeal, leading to the issue floating in legal limbo given CIT's lack of power to issue a precedential opinion. Judge M. Miller Baker's opinion upholding use of AFA put the power to appeal in the hands of the countervailing duty respondents (see 2209140029). While an appeal may seem straightforward, other concerns cloud the prospect.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Oct. 6 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. plans to file a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of an opinion finding that the Commerce Department cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping duty review where multiple exporters have requested a review. The Federal Circuit granted an order on Oct. 5 giving the government 60 more days to file the rehearing motion. In the case, originally brought by YC Rubber Co., the Federal Circuit said that Commerce's interpretation of the statute finding that it can use only one respondent cuts against the statute's unambiguous language (see 2208290026). The judges ruled the agency has not shown it to be otherwise reasonable to calculate the all-others rate based on only one respondent and said the directive to find a weighted average gives no reason why it's reasonable to use only a single rate (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, Fed. Cir. 21-1489).