A Canadian softwood lumber producer cannot claim to be a successor-in-interest to another lumber company still in existence, the government argued in a Sept. 6 brief at the Court of International Trade (GreenFirst Forest Products, v. United States, CIT # 22-00097)
The Commerce Department properly stuck by its decision to issue questionnaires in lieu of on-site verification due to the COVID-19-related travel restrictions on remand at the Court of International, the agency argued in a Sept. 6 brief filed to the Court of International Trade. During the remand, Commerce took a new agency action by finding that the questionnaire responses constituted verification -- a move it says was not only legal but justified since the antidumping duty respondent, Shakti Forge Industries, gave an amount of information that typically exceeds that found in other investigations, and the information corroborated and verified information that Shakti previously submitted (Bonney Forge Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-03837).
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 8 order upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a scope case on the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China originally brought by Vandewater International. Following an initial decision from Judge Leo Gordon, Commerce continued to find that Vandewater's steel branch outlets used in fire protection systems fall under the scope of the AD order using an analysis of the (k)(2) criteria. In the newest opinion, Gordon said despite the plaintiffs' arguments that show the record could back a finding that the outlets are excluded from the order, the court cannot find that Commerce acted unreasonably in its conclusion using the (k)(2) factors.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Sept. 7 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Commerce Department erred by including "grossly outdated" data to calculate the benefits derived from the provision of land for less than adequate remuneration in a countervailing duty review, plaintiffs led by JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co. said in a Sept. 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Further, the plaintiffs railed against Commerce's use of adverse facts available over the alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program and its decision to use certain lease rates to calculate the benefits for JA Solar's reported leases, among other things (JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00232).
The Commerce Department, in seeking to have countervailing duty respondents verify that neither they nor their U.S. customers benefited from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, implemented requirements "so onerous" as to make verification "out of reach," plaintiff Dalian Mesien Woodworking Co. said in Sept. 6 comments on Commerce's remand results. Adding to the rebuke of Commerce's submission to the Court of International Trade, plaintiff-intervenor The Ancientree Cabinet Co. argued that the agency's verification process flies in the face of the court's directive to find a "practical solution to verify the non-use" of the EBCP (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00110).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Sept. 6 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube Co. will appeal an August Court of International Trade ruling that found that the Commerce Department properly excluded dual-stenciled pipe from the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, according to the Sept. 2 notice of appeal. The petitioner will take its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. At CIT, Judge Stephen Vaden ruled that no line pipe was made in Thailand when the original AD investigation was conducted almost 40 years ago and that the International Trade Commission made no harm finding for line or dual-stenciled pipe from Thailand (see 2208260024) (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00133).
The Commerce Department violated the law by simply averaging ocean freight data from Xeneta and Descartes to value ocean freight in a benchmark calculation in a countervailing duty review, respondent Risen Energy Co. argued in a Sept. 1 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce should have used just the Xeneta data since it is the only source that fulfilled the agency's regulatory guidelines for the cost of ocean freight, Risen said. The respondent also railed against Commerce's use of total adverse facts available over Risen's U.S. customers' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program -- a move repeatedly struck down by the trade court (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00231).
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 2 opinion upheld parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation on phosphate fertilizers from Russia. In a case contested by respondents PhosAgro Cherepovets and EuroChem and petitioners LLC Industrial Group Phosphorite and The Mosaic Co., Judge Jane Restani found that Commerce erred in adjusting the natural gas benchmark price by adding the relevant 20% VAT and 5% import duty and misapplying its methodology in calculating EuroChem's total sales by relying on a number given by EuroChem that included sales from eight producers and input suppliers to export trading company EuroChem Trading Rus. The judge also sent back Commerce's cut-off date for measuring subsidies in the Russian economy.