The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade erroneously upheld the Commerce Department's finding that an Australian exporter did not reimburse an affiliated importer for antidumping duties paid and subsequent decision not to deduct the amount of the duties from the exporter's U.S. price, United States Steel Corp. argued in a Sept. 30 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (United States Steel Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2078).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Oct. 3 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Surety company American Home Assurance Co.'s (AHAC's) affirmative defense of laches requires it to prove that it suffered prejudice given the government's delay in commencing a legal action over uncollected antidumping duties. AHAC has failed to do so and thus cannot make its laches claims, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 28 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The surety company has failed to show either defense or economic prejudice in arguing that the case should be dismissed since it was filed beyond the statute of limitations to collect the duties under the bond, the U.S. said (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175).
The fact that the Commerce Department verified non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in two administrative proceedings speaks to the validity of its verification process, the U.S. said in a Sept. 28 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Asking the trade court to uphold its use of adverse facts available for countervailing duty respondents' failure to submit full questionnaire responses issued on remand over the EBCP, the government argued that the fact that it verified non-use administratively in other cases shows the need for the requested information (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00110).
Exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer failed to timely submit a separate rate application by the applicable deadline, making it ineligible to rebut the presumption of Chinese government control and get a separate rate, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 28 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Jin Tiong is not absolved from having missed the deadline by a wrongly filed, then later rescinded, questionnaire sent to the exporter by the Commerce Department, the brief said (Repwire v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00016).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Sept. 29 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade should find that the Commerce Department's scope ruling pertaining to importer Fasteners for Retail, doing business as Siffron, was not legal, antidumping duty petitioner Magnum Magnetics argued in a Sept. 28 complaint. The scope ruling that excluded Siffron's goods from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on raw flexible magnets from China "is unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise not in accordance with law," the brief said. Commerce found that Siffron's plastic shelf dividers, consisting of a "raw flexible magnet that is bonded with an adhesive to the base of a plastic sheet that is generally T- or L-shaped," are excluded from the scope of the order (Magnum Magnetics v. United States, CIT #22-00254).
The Commerce Department cannot use one antidumping respondent's third-country sales to calculate another's constructed value profit, selling expenses and constructed export price profit since the second respondent has no means to review the underlying data to gauge its accuracy, plaintiff Hyundai Steel Company argued in a brief at the Court of International Trade. The record had many alternative sources for calculating these elements, including sources Commerce had used in the past for calculating CV profit, selling expenses and CEP profit, the brief said (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00138).
The Commerce Department properly used adverse facts available after finding that antidumping duty respondent Kumar Industries failed to provide key information on its affiliation status, instead supplying conflicting reports on whether one of its partners received income from two unnamed companies, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Kumar's bid to explain the discrepancy between the conflicting information "was unpersuasive, and even if true, failed to fully address Commerce's concerns," the brief said (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00622).