The Commerce Department has failed to address the flaws found in the use of the Cohen's d test when using its differential pricing analysis (DPA) to detect "masked" dumping, exporter SeAH Steel Corp. argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to the U.S.'s argument that SeAH has failed to point to any statistical texts that explicitly address Commerce's claim that it can properly use the test, the exporter said that the burden is on the agency to find supportive texts and not merely rely on the silence of statistical authorities (Stupp Corp. v. United States, CIT #15-00334).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade in a June 17 opinion denied exporter Shanghai Tainai Bearing's and importer C&U Americas' bid for an injunction against cash deposits at the antidumping duty rate decided in the 2019-20 review of the AD order on tapered roller bearings from China. Judge Stephen Vaden said that the plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood to succeed on the merits or suffer irreparable harm and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the U.S. government.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 21 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Commerce Department properly used the expected method to determine the non-selected respondent's rate in an antidumping duty review of steel nails from Taiwan, the Court of International Trade said in a June 16 opinion. Judge Mark Barnett ruled that the burden was on the plaintiffs, led by PrimeSource Building Products, to establish that the expected method -- the practice of averaging adverse facts available rates in the absence of non-AFA, zero or de minimis margins -- should not be used. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs gave no evidence to back their claim that the expected method was not reasonably reflective of their actual margins.
The Court of International Trade in a June 17 opinion denied plaintiffs Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. and C&U Americas injunctive relief from paying cash deposits stemming from the 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Judge Stephen Vaden said that the plaintiffs failed to establish that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm from paying the 538.79% cash deposit rate or that they were likely to succeed on the merits. Vaden further held that the balance of equities and public interest favor the U.S. when considering an injunction on the cash deposits.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 17 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate June 16 in two cases contesting whether the Commerce Department properly modified the scope of its antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on quartz surface products from China in response to evasion. Building materials company Bruskin International argued that Commerce was wrong to accept the petitioner's scope request, claiming that the agency should have treated it as a request to amend the petition. In the opinion, the appellate court held that the agency is not bound to the preliminary scope and that it had properly changed the scope under its own authority and not per the petitioner's request (see 2204250029) (M S International, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1679, -1680).
The Commerce Department properly dropped its particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, the Court of International Trade held in a June 16 opinion. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that since the question of whether Commerce can make such an adjustment was settled in the key Hyundai Steel v. U.S. case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, "the court need not waste its or the Parties' resources any further."
The Court of International Trade in a June 15 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's final determination in the 2019 antidumping duty investigation on wood mouldings and millwork products from Brazil. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that Commerce properly combined the three mandatory respondents -- Araupel, Braslumber Industria de Molduras and BrasPine Madeiras -- into a single entity and correctly didn't apply the major input rule to certain log purchases. Commerce was also right to revise Araupel's general and administrative expenses to account for fair value adjustments associated with the annual revaluation of standing trees in the company's unharvested forests, the court said. The result is a zero percent dumping margin for the collapsed entity.