The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 20 on AD/CVD proceedings:
A CBP stay request in a lawsuit challenging an Enforce and Protect Act evasion determination while the agency seeks a covered merchandise referral from Commerce amounts to a delay tactic to extend enforcement in a losing action, Fedmet said in a May 18 motion asking the Court of International Trade to deny the stay (Fedmet Resources Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00248).
The Commerce Department fully addressed the Court of International Trade's questions about why the agency needs certain information from the Chinese government in order to verify that certain exporters' U.S. customers did not use the Export Buyer's Credit Program, a countervailing duty petitioner argued in May 19 comments supporting Commerce's remand. The petitioner, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers Union, AFL-CIO, said that the "only reasonable way" for Commerce to pursue verification of non-use of the EBCP is through this requested information, so the Chinese government not providing it stands as reasonable grounds for the use of adverse facts available (Cooper (Kunshan) Tire Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00113).
The Court of International Trade in a May 19 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case, finding that exporter Pirelli Tyre wasn't controlled by the Chinese state for the first 10 months of the AD review. Ten months into the review, Chinese company Chem China bought Pirelli, but Commerce originally held that Pirelli was owned by the Chinese government for the entire review. On remand, the agency said Chem China didn't own Pirelli for the first 10 months, giving the exporter a 1.45% dumping rate for this period.
The Commerce Department sufficiently backed its position that electricity subsidies in China were regionally specific, the Court of International Trade said in a May 19 opinion in a countervailing duty review challenge. Addressing the four other previously remanded elements of the review, Judge Jane Restani ultimately upheld Commerce's remand.
The Court of International Trade in a May 12 opinion made public May 20 remanded the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation on wood cabinets and vanities from China. The plaintiffs, led by Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co., challenged Commerce's use of adverse facts available on China's Export Buyer's Credit Program and the agency's use of a different plywood benchmark for different companies despite the fact that the companies used the same types of plywood.
The Court of International Trade in a May 20 opinion denied the right to intervene in a countervailing duty case for the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that the coalition does not have a right to intervene in the action since it has not shown it has a "direct, immediate, or legally protectable interest in this case" or that the U.S. will not adequately represent its interests. The judge also said that it will not let the coalition intervene since it fails to show that it shares a defense to plaintiff GreenFirst's claims since it doesn't sufficiently allege that it will be adversely affected by a decision in the case. GreenFirst filed the case to contest the Commerce Department's decision to not start a changed circumstances review of the CVD order on softwood lumber from Canada.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 19 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Cedar shingles manufactured and exported by Valley Cedar for inclusion in the U.S. in shingle panels are not covered by antidumping and countervailing duties on softwood lumber from Canada (A-122-857/C-122-858), the Commerce Department said in a May 12 scope ruling. Though different in dimensions than the cedar shakes and shingles Commerce has previously found exempt, Valley Cedar’s shingles are destined for the same uses, the agency said.
The Court of International Trade in a May 10 opinion made public May 17 sustained parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's remand results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from South Korea. In the opinion, Judge Mark Barnett remanded Commerce's use of adverse facts available over plaintiff Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems' (HEES's) reporting of certain parts as not being in the scope of the order. The judge also upheld the use of AFA relating to Hyundai's reporting of service-related revenue and the completeness of its U.S. sales database.