The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should not stay a case over the U.S.'s bid to collect antidumping duties on entries brought in between 2000 and 2001, the Department of Justice argued in a Dec. 10 brief. Though the defendant in the case, surety company American Home Assurance Company (AHAC), wants the case stayed until a resolution in a similar case, the U.S. argues that it will be harmed due to its ongoing discovery efforts in the AHAC action and that AHAC has failed to show any hardship. The U.S. also says the speculative nature of how the related case will affect the AHAC action does not warrant a stay (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175).
The Commerce Department's position that the provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration is specific to solar cell producers is not backed by substantial evidence, countervailing duty review respondent Risen Energy Co. argued in a Dec. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The arguments that the government relies on misinterpret the evidence cited by Commerce and in fact affirm the minor role of China's National Development and Reform Commission -- the entity China used to establish the specificity of the alleged benefits, Risen argued (Risen Energy Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03912).
The Commerce Department can no longer make a particular market situation adjustment to an antidumping respondent's cost of production in a sales-below-cost test, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in a Dec. 10 opinion. Cementing what the Court of International Trade has repeatedly held, a three-judge panel at the appellate court said that the statute -- in particular, a section of the 2015 Trade Preferences Extension Act -- does not permit such a PMS adjustment. Rather, the statute only allows a PMS adjustment for constructed value, the Federal Circuit said.
The Court of International Trade remanded on Dec. 13 the Commerce Department's final results in the antidumping duty investigation of utility scale wind towers from South Korea. Judge Leo Gordon held that Commerce didn't group the different towers' control numbers together by any of the required 11 physical characteristics or use the characteristics as a "guidepost." Instead, the agency adjusted the towers' costs by weight-averaging the reported steel plate costs for all the reported CONNUMs. Gordon asked Commerce for further explanation or reconsideration.
Sidley Austin promoted Shawn Higgins to partner in the Washington, D.C., office, the firm announced. Higgins' practice includes various trade remedy matters, antidumping and countervailing duty investigations at the Commerce Department and International Trade Commission, and international trade compliance.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 10 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
The parties appealing a Court of International Trade decision, led by Shanxi Hairui Trade Co., filed a confidential appendix that is not in compliance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the appellate court said in a Dec. 7 notice. The confidential version of the appendix doesn't include the "pertinent excerpts of any statutes imposing confidentiality or the entirety of any judicial or administrative protective order" at the beginning of the filing. Further, the document doesn't have the required proof of service, the notice said. The appellants are challenging the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from China, in which Commerce used adverse facts available (Shanxi Hairui Trade Co., Ltd. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2067).
The Court of International Trade consolidated two cases challenging the Commerce Department's final results in the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia, in a Dec. 9 order. One case was brought by U.S. Steel Corp. and the other by Australian company BlueScope Steel Ltd., a mandatory respondent in the review. BlueScope challenged Commerce's decision not to deduct discounts and rebates from BlueScope's normal value when setting its dumping rate, arguing that this decision went against the agency's past regulations and was based on an inaccurate understanding of BlueScope's data (see 2109280038). U.S. Steel, though, said that Commerce violated the law when it found that BlueScope did not reimburse its U.S. affiliate for antidumping duties (see 2109210081). The cases were consolidated under U.S. Steel's action (United States Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00528).
The Commerce Department need not address the issue of an antidumping respondent's date of sale since it would have no material effect on the respondent's rate, the Department of Justice said in a Dec. 7 brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to the antidumping petitioner's comments that argued that Commerce needs to resolve the U.S. date of sale issue as required by the court, the U.S. said that this would be an exercise in futility that is not required by the relevant caselaw since it would be immaterial to the final rate. The respondent, Turkish steel company Borusan Mannesmann echoed these sentiments in its own brief, and added that two-and-a-half years is long enough for it to have waited for the relief that it is entitled to (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00056).