The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 sustained the Commerce’s Department’s third remand results in an case that revolved around the constructed value calculation in an antidumping duty review on steel nails from Oman. The trade court found Commerce justified its switch on remand between surrogate companies, despite calls from the exporter under review to use a different company.
The Court of International Trade issued a decision Aug. 8 remanding surrogate value calculations in an antidumping review on activated carbon from China back to the Commerce Department for reconsideration or explanation. While CIT sustained five of the seven surrogate selections at issue in the case, it found the agency failed to explain its surrogate value selection of a dataset for carbonized material and its pick of a company for determining surrogate financial ratios.
The Court of International Trade will close out a controversial case involving allegations of antidumping and countervailing duty evasion by a Dominican exporter in the exporter’s favor, granting on Aug. 8 a motion to enter judgment sustaining CBP’s reversal of an evasion finding for Kingtom Aluminio in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation. Kingtom, several importers and the U.S. government had filed a joint motion requesting CBP’s remand results be sustained.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 8 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Antidumping duty respondent Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi relied on a "mischaracterization of the facts" when arguing against the Commerce Department's use of home market prices denominated in Turkish lira, antidumping petitioners, led by Cleveland-Cliffs, argued in an Aug. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The petitioners said that, contrary to the respondent's contention, the invoice stated prices in lira and that it was the lira value and not the U.S. dollar value that controlled how much the customer paid, making Commerce's move legal (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. United States, CIT #21-00527).
The U.S.'s "unreasonable delay" in asserting claims seeking to collect antiduming duties on entries of canned mushrooms brought in between 2000 and 2001 warrants dismissal of its case at the Court of International Trade seeking the duties, surety company American Home Assurance Co. (AHAC) argued in an Aug. 1 reply brief. Responding to the court's request for more briefing over AHAC's affirmative defense and claims of prejudice, the surety company said that it has not been able to actually provide significant evidence of actual harm "despite best efforts," but that the case should be decided on statute of limitations grounds (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 5 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Four honey importers -- Honey Solutions, Sunland Trading, Export Packers Co. and Sweet Harvest Foods -- filed four nearly identical complaints at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 4 arguing against the International Trade Commission's decision that led to the antidumping duty order on raw honey from Vietnam. The six-count complaints argue against that, contrary to the ITC's findings, the Vietnamese import volume has not jumped enough to undermine the remedial effect of the antidumping order such as to require a critical circumstances determination.
The Commerce Department cannot deduct Section 232 national security duties from antidumping duty respondent Borusan Mannesman's U.S. price because the duties are remedial, temporary and deducting them would count as a double remedy, making them unlike normal customs duties, the respondent argued. Filing a reply brief Aug. 4 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the respondent said Commerce failed to conduct a "fulsome analysis" of whether the Section 232 duties are more like normal customs duties or to special duties, like Section 201 safeguards, and instead "confined its analysis" to finding distinctions between Section 232 and Section 201 duties. The agency also failed to acknowledge the "legal and constitutional distinction between regular duties imposed by Congress" and special duties imposed by the president (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2097).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 4 on AD/CVD proceedings: