Antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube Co. wants one of its appeals of an antidumping duty case over whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test dismissed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but says one other appeal should be kept alive. Filing a motion for voluntary dismissal, Wheatland said that its case was held in abeyance pending an appeal of the key case, Hyundai Steel Co v. U.S., to the Supreme Court, in which the Federal Circuit said that Commerce cannot make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test (see 2112100039). Since no writ of certiorari was filed to the nation's highest court by Wheatland in the Hyundai Steel case, the court should toss the present appeal, the petitioner argued.
Importer Prime Time Commerce failed to exhaust its administrative remedies for its argument that the Commerce Department should look to confidential information to provide "gap-filling" data needed to calculate a rate separate from the China-wide dumping margin for the importer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a June 28 opinion. Sustaining the Court of International Trade, Judges Alan Lourie, Haldane Mayer and Tiffany Cunningham also ruled that while CIT and Commerce erred in not accepting Prime Time's submissions since it is an "interested party," the error was a harmless one.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 28 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 should grant exporter Borusan Mannesmann's motion for summary affirmance in its case over whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, Borusan argued in a June 24 letter. Since the appellate court held Borusan's case in abeyance pending a petition for writ of certiorari from the court's decision in Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S. and no such petition was filed, the court should grant the affirmance motion, the brief said (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1502).
Plaintiffs in a countervailing duty case railed against the Commerce Department's reliance on adverse facts available over the CVD respondents' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, filing a series of four separate briefs at the Court of International Trade. The plaintiffs, led by nonselected respondent Evolutions Flooring, argued that the use of AFA over the EBCP has been "consistently rejected under almost identical factual circumstances," and that Commerce was able to verify non-use of the program without certain information in a different CVD case (Evolutions Flooring v. United States, CIT #21-00591).
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 28 opinion upheld the Court of International Trade's ruling in a case on the 2015-16 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cased pencils from China. Importer Prime Time Commerce had argued that Commerce should look to confidential information to provide "gap-filling" data needed to calculate a rate separate from the China-wide dumping margin. The court upheld that Prime Time Commerce failed to exhaust its administrative remedies during the remand period at the trade court. The appellate court ruled that while the trade court erred by finding that Commerce could not accept Prime Time's submissions as an "interested party," the error was a harmless one and does not require a remand.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 27 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade should not grant Nucor Corporation's stay motion in a countervailing duty case because Nucor has not shown that a stay would facilitate an efficient resolution of the case or conserve the court's resources or that "any duplication of efforts outweighs the detrimental effects of its requested indefinite stay," the U.S. argued in a June 24 reply brief (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00070).
The Court of International Trade granted importer DS Services of America's motion for a preliminary injunction in its case seeking to reinstate a previously granted exclusion from Section 301 China duties for water coolers classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8418.69.0120. The court's order suspends the liquidation of the plaintiff's unliquidated entries while allowing the U.S. to continue to collect Section 301 duties, as the injunction is structured like a statutory injunction routinely entered in antidumping and countervailing duty cases (DS Services of America v. United States, CIT #22-00157).