The Commerce Department erred in a scope ruling regarding antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum sheets from China, importer Valeo argued to the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 12 brief (Valeo North America v. U.S., CIT #21-00581). The brief supports a March motion for judgment that challenged the ruling by Commerce that determined Valeo’s imported heat-treated T-series aluminum sheet is covered by the scope of the AD/CVD orders.
The International Trade Commission overvalued the importance of price in its determination of injury in an antidumping duty investigation on methionine from Spain and Japan, a Spanish exporter told the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 12 brief that seeks to toss out the ITC's determination of material injury (Adisseo Espana and Adisseo USA v. U.S., CIT #21-00562).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 16 remanded the Commerce Department's cost calculations for a Brazilian paper manufacturer in the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on uncoated paper from Brazil. Judge Gary Katzmann remanded back to Commerce the issue of its inclusion of Suzano’s derivative expenses in its cost of production. The judge ordered Commerce to provide the court with its remand results within 90 days.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 15 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case, led by Ellwood City Forge, shouldn't be allowed reconsideration at the Court of International Trade following the dismissal of their case challenging the Commerce Department's failure to conduct verification in an antidumping duty investigation due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, the government said in an Aug. 11 response motion (Ellwood City Forge v. United States, CIT #21-00073).
CBP's Office of Regulations and Rulings abused its discretion when it overturned a determination of evasion on administrative review, the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC) said in an Aug. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. United States, CIT # 22-00236). AEFTC is challenging the results of the administrative review that reversed an earlier CBP finding that Kingtom Aluminio had evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China by transshipping them through the Dominican Republic (see 2208090018). AEFTC argued that the results of the administrative review "undermined the evidence collected at the on-site verification and accepted Kingtom’s proffered reconciliation of its production data," which CBP had previously rejected. AEFTC asked the court to remand the matter to CBP.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 12 on AD/CVD proceedings:
CBP's Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate recently upheld on review a finding that AA Metals evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on common alloy aluminum sheet from China, it said in a decision following an Enforce and Protect Act administrative review. AA Metal submitted the request for review in May after CBP issued an April determination of evasion (see 2204070042). The investigation followed a March 2020 EAPA allegation by Texarkana Aluminum against AA Metals, alleging that AA Metals entered common alloy aluminum sheets of Chinese origin into the U.S. via transshipment through Turkey to evade AD/CVD duties on aluminum from China.
Minor issues in reporting home market sales in an antidumping duty administrative review don’t rise to the level that would justify an adverse facts available margin for an exporter’s large power transformers from South Korea, nor does the exporter’s purported lack of cooperation in a previous year’s administrative review give Commerce leeway to apply AFA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Aug. 11.
Remand redeterminations recently submitted by the Commerce Department in two related cases are not final agency decisions that can be sustained by the Court of International Trade, and doing so would circumvent the trade court’s judicial review process, CIT said in a pair of Aug. 10 decisions rejecting the remand results in a case involving a scope ruling on door thresholds.