The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Sept. 20 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate Sept. 19 in a case on the 10th administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture. In the opinion, the appellate court ruled that CBP timely liquidated or reliquidated 10 entries of the furniture, finding that the first unambiguous indication that an injunction against liquidation had ended came from liquidation instructions from the Commerce Department that were sent within the six months prior to liquidation (see 2207280028). The Federal Circuit said a Court of International Trade opinion in a separate case that put in place the injunction on the 11 entries under dispute did not unambiguously end the injunction (Aspects Furniture International v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2060, -2061).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate Sept. 19 in a case involving an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from South Korea. The court ruled that minor issues in reporting home market sales don't rise to the level that justifies the use of an adverse facts available margin, nor does the respondent's purported lack of cooperation in a previous year's review (see 2208110069) (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2312).
The Commerce Department violated the law by basing the margin for non-individually examined companies in an antidumping duty review only on a mandatory respondent with a zero rate, and not considering another mandatory respondent that got the China-wide rate for failing to cooperate, the American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring (AMMWF) argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Even if the respondent does not cooperate, it remains an individually-examined company and must be used as part of the expected method for the non-individually examined respondents, AMMWF argued (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. United States, CIT #21-00595).
The Commerce Department properly dropped its use of facts available over a South Korean port usage rights program in a countervailing duty review, the Court of International Trade ruled Sept. 19. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves also found that because the result is a de minimis rate, reviewing whether the program is countervailable "would have no practical significance and is mooted," sustaining Commerce's remand results.
The European Court of Justice on Sept. 8 ruled the EU properly reimposed antidumping duties on certain footwear with uppers of leather from China and Vietnam. Ruling against German footwear company Puma, the bloc's highest court said the European Commission in 2016 legally reimposed the duties of up to 16.5%.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Sept. 19 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Domestic companies party to an antidumping duty matter are incorrect to argue that the Commerce Department should continue finding that a particular market situation exists for a welded line pipe input, Commerce argued in Sept. 16 comments at the Court of International Trade. Plaintiff Nexteel Co. added that the defendant-intervenors' points are moot since they have not highlighted any error of fact or law made by the trade court in striking down Commerce's past rationale for its PMS finding. The statute also does not allow for a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, Nexteel and the U.S. said in rebuking the U.S. companies (Nexteel Co. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03898).
The Commerce Department erred by failing to reduce respondent Koehler Paper's constructed export price by interest accrued on unpaid antidumping duties, plaintiffs Domtar Corp. and Appvion argued in a Sept. 15 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Commerce failed to explain why this unpaid interest should be added to the cost of production rather than taken from the CEP given that the agency has the authority to make needed adjustments to cost items that are treated as a CEP deduction and not just to cost items that are components of COP, the brief said (Matra Americas v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00632).
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 19 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. On remand, Commerce dropped its use of facts otherwise available for a South Korean port usage rights program, resulting in a de minimis rate for respondent Hyundai Steel. Though Hyundai continued to argue against Commerce's decision to countervail the program, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that consideration of the benefit finding "would have no practical significance and is mooted."