The Court of International Trade on June 9 sent back a Commerce Department scope ruling excluding exporter Cheng Shin Rubber Industry's temporary-use spare tires from the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicles and light truck tires from Taiwan. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce improperly added a requirement that subject tires be for "regular use" in a vehicle, noting that the agency's interpretation doesn't appear in the "statutory language" and is undercut by the "terms of the Order itself." The judge said there's evidence showing Cheng Shin's tires "are of a size that fit passenger cars," which falls under the plain meaning of the order's scope.
Chinese exporter Yingli Energy on June 3 supported its argument that the Court of International Trade should strike down the Commerce Department’s usual presumption that exporters in non-market economies are under government control (Yingli Energy (China) Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00131).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 6 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. and Fortune Energy agreed June 4 to settle a customs penalty case alleging that the importer lied about the composition of its aluminum extrusions in entry paperwork to avoid paying antidumping duties (United States v. Fortune Energy, CIT # 23-00040).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 5 said the Commerce Department improperly prioritized "transparency" over its statutory duty to compare physically identical products in an antidumping duty review.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 5 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade on June 3 sustained the Commerce Department's selection of the financial statement of TMTE Metal Tech to calculate respondent Triune Technofab's constructed value in the antidumping duty investigation on boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from India. The result is a negative determination in the AD investigation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 3 sharply questioned counsel for exporter Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. in its case alleging that the Commerce Department doesn't have the adequate legal authority for its non-market economy policy in antidumping duty cases, which includes a rebuttable presumption that an exporter is controlled by the NME nation (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 5 sent back the Commerce Department's 2018-19 antidumping review of Italian pasta, finding that the agency improperly prioritized "transparency" and "consistency" over the physical differences between pasta sold in the U.S. and Italy. Given that protein content was used to distinguish premium and standard pasta for U.S. and like product comparison purposes, Judges Alan Lourie, Alvin Schall and Kara Stoll faulted Commerce for failing to account for FDA rounding requirements for the protein content listed on the label of U.S.-sold pasta and the "different nitrogen-to-protein conversion factors used in calculating protein content in the United States versus Italy." However, the court said exporter La Molisana didn't provide sufficient evidence to challenge Commerce's use of a 12.5% protein content breakpoint in distinguishing between standard and premium pasta.
The Commerce Department is asking for public comments on its proposals to revise the current policy of assessing entries of unaffiliated resellers at the all-others antidumping duty rate and to eliminate expedited countervailing duty reviews. Comments are due by July 7.