The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 27 on AD/CVD proceedings:
An investigation by CBP into alleged evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties on wooden cabinets and vanities from China has found substantial evidence of evasion by four importers. In a final EAPA determination, CBP found that ZL Center, USGS, Inc., JGS Import, Inc. and US Sunergy Corp. evaded AD and CVD orders by misrepresenting imports of Chinese-origin WCV as Malaysian.
The Court of International Trade in a May 19 opinion made public May 27 sent back the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available over alleged subsidies stemming from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty investigation. Judge Richard Eaton said that not enough evidence backs Commerce's use of AFA to find that the plaintiffs, led by Zhejiang Junyue Standard Part Co., benefitted from the EBCP. In the investigation, Commerce also tripled the subsidy rate for the program to account for benefits received by Junyue and two of its affiliates. Eaton remanded this as well, finding that this move "has not been explained adequately."
The Court of International Trade in two May 26 orders sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping case and a countervailing duty case, both brought by Turkish exporter Celik Halat. The cases contested the Commerce Department's decision to reject minutes-late submissions. Following a remand, the agency accepted the submissions, resulting in lowered AD/CVD rates for Celik Halat and the ultimate acceptance of the remand by the trade court.
The Court of International Trade in a May 26 order denied the U.S.' motion for a stay in an antidumping case. The case, brought by exporter Building Systems de Mexico, contests the less-than-fair-value investigation into fabricated structural steel from Mexico. The U.S. requested a stay until the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issues a decision in an appeal of the International Trade Commission's negative injury determination on the steel from China. Judge Claire Kelly said that "a stay is not appropriate in this case" since BSM could be harmed by a stay order. The exporter has already successfully challenged four of the Commerce Department's bases for finding dumping, and a stay would "significantly devalue" its investment in challenging the finding of dumping needed for an AD order, she said.
A renewable energy trade group called on the Commerce Department to end its anti-circumvention inquiry on solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, citing a recent news article that quoted energy industry analysts saying Auxin Solar misapplied their research to justify its allegations of circumvention.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 26 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a May 23 order denied antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube's motion to continue the stay in the appeal and AD respondent Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret's motion for summary affirmance. The case concerns the Commerce Department's move to make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in the administrative review of the AD order on circular welded pipes from Turkey (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. Nucor Tubular Products Inc., United States, Fed. Cir. # 2021-2097, 2021-217)
Korean steel producer Nexteel filed a complaint May 25 with the Court of International Trade over alleged errors in calculating antidumping duty rates during an administrative review on oil tubular goods from Korea. In it, Nexteel, a non-individually examined separate rate company, challenges the rate Commerce calculated for Hyundai Steel that resulted in a higher average rate assigned to Nexteel and the other 29 non-individually investigated respondents (Nexteel Co., Ltd v. United States, CIT No. 22-00140).
Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case led by Ellwood City Forge failed to challenge the legality of the questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification due to COVID-19 travel restrictions until the case reached the Court of International Trade, highlighting their failure to exhaust administrative remedies, exporter Bharat Forge argued. In a reply brief filed May 20, the exporter said the issue was "ripe for consideration" during the AD case, "yet Plaintiffs inexplicably did not raise" it (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT Consol. #21-00007).