The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Aug. 8 opinion held that tradeable tax credits fall within the regulatory definition of a "price adjustment," meaning the Commerce Department properly deducted the credits from respondent LDC Argentina's export price. Judges Kimberly Moore, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes also ruled that Commerce's use of an international market price for soybeans in its constructed value calculation for biodiesel does not count as a double remedy, even though the U.S. imposed countervailing duties on Argentine soybeans.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 2 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Government of Ontario won't participate in an appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over the countervailing duty investigation on wind towers from Canada. Ontario gave notice of its non-participation on July 27 in the case. In March, the Court of International Trade sustained all five of the Commerce Departments positions under contention in the investigation. The consolidated case includes challenges to the investigation from Marmen Energie, which was the mandatory respondent; the governments of Canada, Quebec and Ontario; and the Wind Tower Trade Coalition, though now the Government of Ontario has dropped out of the appeal. Though it is out of the appeal, the court refused to drop the government from the case's official caption (The Government of Quebec, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1807).
The U.S. identified an incorrect standard for intervention in opposing exporter SeAH Steel Corp.'s motion to intervene in an antidumping proceeding at the Court of International Trade, SeAH argued in a July 29 brief. The exporter argued that it clearly has a right to intervene in the action since a CIT rule says that a party can intervene if it is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute. Given that a federal statute does just that since SeAH was a party to the underlying review in question, SeAH said it can intervene in the case (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00138).
The Commerce Department's decision to reject exporter GreenFirst Forest Production's request for a changed circumstances review in a countervailing duty review was "arbitrary and capricious," GreenFirst argued in a brief at the Court of International Trade. The agency based its decision on an inapplicable practice to the case and effectively barred GreenFirst from obtaining a successor-in-interest determination despite its acquisition of Rayonier A.M. Canada's (RYAM's) lumber mills, the brief said (GreenFirst Forest Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00097).
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Aug. 2 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's determination in an antidumping investigation of biodiesel from Argentina. Judges Kimberly Moore, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes held that tradeable tax credits fall within the regulatory definition of a "price adjustment" and deducted the credits from respondent LDC Argentina's export price. The appellate court also ruled that Commerce's use of an international market price for soybeans in its constructed value calculation for biodiesel does not count as a double remedy even though the U.S. imposed countervailing duties on Argentine soybeans.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 1 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should deny exporter Dong-A Steel Co.'s bid to intervene in an antidumping duty case, the U.S. argued in a July 28 brief at the trade court. DOJ argued that Dong-A cannot show that it will suffer injury over the Commerce Department's finding over plaintiff HiSteel Co.'s dumping margin since Dong-A got its own individual dumping margin for its exports that would be unaffected by any decision in HiSteel's case (HiSteel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00142).