The Court of International Trade should uphold the Commerce Department's application of adverse facts available for China's Export Buyer's Credit Program after the trade court in a separate case accepted the agency's explanation of why missing information from the Chinese government was needed to verify non-use, countervailing duty petitioner American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance (AKCA) argued in comments on Commerce remand results Sept. 28 (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00110).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Sept. 28 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Commerce Department properly found that importers Worldwide Door Components' and Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion for the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the importers said in a pair of comments on Commerce's remand results. Submitting their arguments to the Court of International Trade, Worldwide and Columbia said that the trade court should uphold the agency's remand results excluding the thresholds from the orders (Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., CIT #19-00013).
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 Court of International in a Sept. 27 order denied a joint motion from plaintiffs in an Enforce and Protect Act case and the U.S. to stay proceedings pending the trade court's resolution of an action looking into whether the Commerce Department's relevant scope determination was legal. Judge Mark Barnett held that the claims in the EAPA case "are largely independent of Commerce's scope ruling."
The Court of International Trade should reconsider its decision upholding the Commerce Department's differential pricing analysis in an antidumping duty review given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision calling the use of a statistical test underpinning the analysis into question, plaintiff SeAH Steel Corp. argued in a Sept. 26 motion. SeAH said the opinion also should be revisited over its move to uphold Commerce's inclusion of SeAH's inventory valuation losses as general and administrative (G&A) expenses (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00086).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Sept. 27 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Antidumping duty respondent Asia Pacific Fibers (APF) failed to exhaust its administrative remedies in its challenge of the Commerce Department's use of a questionnaire instead of on-site verification, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Given this failure, the U.S. had no chance to consider and address the issues raised by the respondent for the first time, the brief said. Further, the U.S. defended Commerce's use of total adverse facts available over APF's failure to supply "critical" supplementary information over the respondent's cost and sales data (PT. Asia Pacific Fibers v. United States, CIT #22-00007).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Sept. 26 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Sept. 23 in a case brought by Vicentin on the antidumping duty investigation on biodiesel from Argentina. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit held that tradeable tax credits fall within the regulatory definition of a "price adjustment," meaning the Commerce Department properly deducted the credits from respondent LDC Argentina's export price (see 2208020052). The court said that the agency's use of an international market price for soybeans in its constructed value calculation for biodiesel does not count as a double remedy, even though the U.S. imposed countervailing duties on Argentine soybeans (Vicentin v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1988).