The Court of International Trade, in three related opinions, rejected reconsideration bids from a series of domestic manufacturers and producers of a wide range of goods covered by antidumping duty orders for the court to vacate or modify certain claims as being time barred. The reconsideration motions concern whether certain claims seeking payouts of delinquency interest under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 were timely filed. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that the plaintiffs "have not put forth a valid reason why the court should vacate or modify the decision."
The Court of International Trade in a June 9 opinion denied Indian exporter Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited's bid for injunctive relief against paying cash deposits from a countervailing duty investigation and liquidation. Judge Timothy Stanceu ruled that the plaintiff failed to show that it would likely face harm without the preliminary injunction since the company did not show that future refunds of excess cash deposits would be an "inadequate remedy." As for the injunction on liquidation, the court said that there's no draft order in "satisfactory form" which could allow the court to issue the standard injunction against liquidation. However, Stanceu gave the plaintiff 30 days to renew the injunction bid.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 7 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade in a June 7 order granted the U.S.'s bid for a stay in an Enforce and Protect Act case, halting proceedings until the Commerce Department issues its final determination in the relevant covered merchandise referral matter. The case concerns Fedmet Resources' challenge of a 2020 EAPA determination, in which CBP found that Fedmet had evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on magnesia alumina carbon (MAC) bricks from China. On April 27, CBP requested a stay to seek a covered merchandise referral from Commerce because it says that it's unable to determine whether the bricks it tested are covered merchandise (see 2204270072) (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT #21-00248).
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 Commerce Department erred by finding that South Korea's provision of electricity below cost "conferred a non-measurable benefit," countervailing duty petitioner Nucor Corp. argued in a June 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Nucor railed against the "evidentiary flaws" Commerce relied on from cost data from South Korea's sole supplier of electricity, the Korean Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), but said that even using this data, it's clear that a benefit was conferred to the mandatory respondents (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00137).
The Commerce Department altered the basis for its use of adverse facts available on remand at the Court of International Trade in an antidumping case after the court said that antidumping respondent Dalian Meisen Woodworking's false advertisements cannot be used as grounds for AFA. Submitting its remand results on June 6, Commerce said that after issuing a host of new questionnaires to Meisen, including a questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification, it changed its bases for AFA, now basing it on the respondent's failure to provide "critical information" in the questionnaire and all of its U.S. affiliates (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00109).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 7 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 issued its mandate in three cases challenging an antidumping duty investigation's final determination subject to a suspension agreement. In the opinions, the appellate court held that the plaintiff-appellants have the right to judicially challenge the final determination even if they're subject to a suspension agreement, though it did dismiss many of the claims made in the actual actions (Red Sun Farms v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2230) (Confederacion de Asociaciones Agricolas del Estado de Sinaloa v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2232) (Jem D International (Michigan) Inc. USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1292).