The Department of Commerce correctly used its knowledge test to exclude from the final margin calculation sales made to JA Solar, argued the government in a July 8 brief at the Court of International Trade opposing a summary judgment by JA Solar (JA Solar International Limited v. U.S., CIT #21-00514).
A World Trade Organization arbitrator determined the methodology Canada can use to set the level of retaliatory measures it can impose on goods imported from the U.S. if the U.S. applies countervailing duties on Canadian goods based on a measure found to be inconsistent with WTO rules. In the July 13 decision, the arbitrator said Canada would set the appropriate level of nullification or impairment in the future "based on the four-variety Armington model," which was recommended by the U.S. and can quantify the trade decline experienced by Canada through a particular use of the U.S.'s adverse facts available measures in CVD proceedings.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 13 on AD/CVD proceedings:
A gun safe imported by Hornady meets the requirements of an exclusion from antidumping duties on metal lockers from China, and is not covered by the AD/CVD orders, the Commerce Department said in a recent scope ruling. But another similar model does qualify for the exclusion and is subject to AD/CV duties, the agency said.
Oriented strand board used in door jambs imported by Composite Technology International (CTI) does not qualify as a composite material for the purposes of an exemption from antidumping and countervailing duties on wood mouldings and millwork from China (A-570-117/C-570-118), so the door jambs are subject to AD/CVD, the Commerce Department said in a recent scope ruling.
An importer entered merchandise covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders on cast iron soil pipe fittings from China (A-570-062/C-570-063) into the U.S through evasion, CBP said in a July 12 notice. The Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute, a trade association of domestic producers of fittings, had alleged in July 2021 that Little Fireflies International transshipped the goods through Cambodia.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiffs in a countervailing duty case, except Taizhou United Imp. & Exp., are appealing a Court of International Trade ruling that the Commerce Department properly found that the Chinese government and CVD respondent Jangho Group failed to respond to the best of their ability over whether certain aluminum extrusion suppliers are "authorities." The plaintiffs are taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. At CIT, Judge Leo Gordon ruled that Commerce appropriately applied adverse facts available in the 2013 administrative review of the CVD order on aluminum extrusions from China (see 2205100076). The plaintiffs challenged Commerce's position that the provision of glass and aluminum extrusions for less than adequate remuneration was specific on an industry basis. Gordon said the plaintiffs pointed out a wide variety of uses for glass but didn't engage with Commerce's analysis of the record finding the recipients of government authority-provided glass are limited in number to at least two and possibly four industries (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #16-00009).
The U.S., in defending its affirmative evasion finding in an Enforce and Protect Act case against Leco Supply, unlawfully seeks to rely on adverse inferences that CBP did not make while also conflating CBP's error in failing to follow its own regulations over the redaction of non-business confidential information with the due process violations that stem from its failure to follow those regulations, Leco argued. Submitting a reply brief at the Court of International Trade, Leco continues to pursue its constitutional claims against CBP's evasion proceeding while tackling the agency's evidentiary basis for the evasion finding and its use of adverse inferences (Leco Supply v. U.S., CIT #21-00136).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 12 order lifted a stay in an antidumping duty case concerning whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, despite its recent decision in Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., which said that Commerce cannot make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test (see 2112100039) (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1175).