The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 13 opinion found the Commerce Department reasonably used adverse facts available in a countervailing duty case related to the Chinese government's failure to submit certain information about the Export Buyer's Credit Program. Marking a clear departure from the trade court's numerous past rulings on the subject, Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce reasonably explained why it needed the information from the Chinese government to verify that the respondents and their U.S. customers did not use the EBCP. The judge further sided with the U.S. over its positions that acrylic polymer can be used as a stand-alone primer and that the agency can average all freight routes to establish a world market benchmark for ocean freight.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Sept. 13 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiffs in a countervailing duty case, Tau-Ken Temir, JSC NMC Tau-Ken Samruk and Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration, will appeal a July Court of International Trade ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the plaintiffs said in a Sept. 11 notice of appeal. In the case, the trade court ruled the Commerce Department properly rejected Tau-Ken Temir's questionnaire responses for being untimely, as they were filed an hour and 41 minutes beyond the deadline (see 2207150035). The court said it is unclear why the plaintiffs failed to file an extension request earlier in the process rather than an hour and 10 minutes before the deadline (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., CIT #21-00173).
CBP unlawfully began an Enforce and Protect Act investigation into CEK Group since the allegation submitted by M&B Metal Products didn't support the start of the investigation, CEK Group argued in a Sept. 12 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. To start an EAPA action, there must be an allegation with specific information -- something CBP did not receive from M&B, the brief said. The plaintiff said the Royal Brush v. U.S. case at the trade court "has now constrained CBP" in EAPA cases from making decisions based on confidential information not made available to the parties via public summaries -- something CBP allegedly did in CEK Group's case (CEK Group v. U.S., CIT #22-00082).
CBP unlawfully changed exporter J.D. Irving's antidumping duty cash deposit rate on its 2020 entries months after the rate had been confirmed when no administrative review had been requested of the exporter, J.D. Irving argued in a Sept. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Because the change came after assessment instructions had been issued for the 2020 review period, it improperly set a cash deposit that was not based on same dumping margin as its most recent assessment rate, the exporter said (J.D. Irving v. U.S., CIT #22-00256).
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 13 order upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case brought by respondent Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings Co. over a countervailing duty review of forged steel fittings from China. Judge Claire Kelly previously sent back Commerce's use of adverse facts available based on the Chinese government's unwillingness to submit certain information related to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The judge said that if the agency wanted to keep using AFA it had to attempt to verify the non-use of the program by looking at evidence from Both-Well and its U.S. customers. Commerce did so on remand, finding that the respondent didn't benefit from the EBCP, dropping the company's CVD rate from 25.90% to 15.36%.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Sept. 12 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should reject a motion from defendant Zhe "John" Liu to strike various paragraphs of the U.S.'s complaint in a Section 592 penalty case, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 8 reply brief. DOJ argued that Liu cannot show that his knowledge and experience -- the content of the paragraphs contested by Liu -- are not material to the issues in the case and thus should not be struck (United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT #22-00215).