CBP improperly denied of protests of antidumping duties on wire rods from Korea due to a missed deadline even though the protests were filed within 180 days of liquidation and liquidation was suspended when CBP says the deadline for protests began to run, Kiswire said in a July 19 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Kiswire Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00181).
CBP illegally found that importers American Pacific Plywood Inc. (APPI), Far East American and Liberty Woods International evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China by transshipping their goods through Vietnam, the importers argued in two July 20 complaints at the Court of International Trade. The importers' six- and 10-count complaints against CBP over its Enforce and Protect Act investigation include claims the agency illegally initiated the investigation, violated the importers' due process rights and improperly found that all of its imports were covered merchandise (Far East American v. United States, CIT #22-00213) (American Pacific Plywood Inc. v. U.S., CIT #22-00214).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 20 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A recent Court of International Trade opinion finding that the Commerce Department appropriately rejected untimely filed questionnaire responses and extension requests is relevant for antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube Co.'s case, the petitioner said in a July 19 notice of supplemental authority (Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Ind. v. United States, CIT #21-00587). In the recent decision in the Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S. case, the court said Commerce properly rejected the hour and 41 minutes-late submissions (see 2207150035). The plaintiffs said that technical difficulties and COVID-19 issues resulted in the late filings, but the court said Commerce did not abuse its discretion in denying the submissions since the plaintiffs' "experienced counsel" should have requested an extension earlier.
A case involving allegedly defective plywood should be dismissed from consideration at the Court of International Trade because the importer has failed to show evidence of actual defect or specific value lost, the government said in a July 18 cross-motion for summary judgement (Bral Corporation v. United States, CIT # 20-00154).
The Commerce Department in July 18 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade found that there was insufficient evidence to deny antidumping respondent Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited's (ZASF) Vietnam sales for use in calculating normal value. In the AD case, Commerce rejected ZASF's third-country sales to Vietnam for allegedly ending up in the U.S. to evade the relevant AD order -- this position was sent back by the trade court. On remand, the agency used the Vietnamese sales to calculate normal value, ending on a 1.73% dumping rate for ZASF (Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00031).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 19 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 12 letter invited the U.S. and defendants-appellants Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) and Hyundai Corp. to file a response to a panel rehearing petition in an antidumping duty case. Originally brought by Hitachi Energy USA, the case concerns the administrative review of the AD order on large power transformers from South Korea. In a May opinion, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Commerce Department improperly hit respondent HHI with adverse facts available over its reporting of service-related revenue. The court said HHI has the right to supplement the record and Commerce cannot claim the company didn't act to the best of its ability in the review since it fully responded to Commerce's requests for further information (see 2205240028). Hitachi then filed for a rehearing, and the court invited the U.S., HHI and Hyundai Corp. to respond since they have yet to file a reply (Hitachi Energy USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2114).