The Court of International Trade in a confidential May 10 opinion sustained parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's remand in a case brought by Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems on the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from South Korea. In a letter on the opinion, Judge Mark Barnett gave the litigants until May 17 to review the opinion to look over business confidential information (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems v. U.S., CIT #20-00108).
The Commerce Department illegally used one antidumping mandatory respondent's third-country sales to calculate another mandatory respondent's constructed value profit, selling expenses and constructed export price profit, mandatory respondent Hyundai Steel Co. and non-selected respondent AJU Besteel Co. argued in a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00138) (AJU Besteel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00139).
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 properly found that the Chinese government and countervailing duty respondent Jangho Group failed to respond to the best of their ability on whether aluminum extrusions producers are "authorities," the Court of International Trade ruled in a May 10 opinion. As a result, Commerce properly applied adverse facts available, Judge Leo Gordon ruled. Issuing his second opinion in the case after Jangho vied for a rehearing over its unaddressed "alternative arguments," Gordon also said that Commerce properly found that the provision of glass and aluminum extrusions below cost are specific subsidies.
The lawyer for a group of three U.S. chloropicrin producers' medical issues were not unexpected and thus do not classify as an "extraordinary circumstance," warranting an untimely filing in an antidumping duty sunset review that led to the revocation of the order, the U.S. argued in a May 9 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The lawyer had been experiencing the medical issues for months and had actually carried out other tasks in the sunset review on the day prior to and on the day the submission was due, showing that the Commerce Department's rejection of the filing in question was justified, DOJ argued (Trinity Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1329).
CBP began a formal investigation of Charman Manufacturing for allegedly evading antidumping duty order A-570-881 on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from China when importing pipe fittings into the U.S., the agency said a notice released May 5.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S., so far, has failed to appear in an appeal from a group of U.S. welded pipe manufacturers over whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in antidumping duty cases. Per a May 6 order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, since the U.S. has not entered an appearance, absent objection, the court will designate Turkish exporter Borusan Mannesmann as "plaintiff-appellee" and remove the appellee designation for the U.S. (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1502).
The Court of International Trade should dismiss a case led by exporter Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co. challenging the Commerce Department's decision to deny a scope ruling request, the U.S. argued in a May 6 reply brief. Responding to Yuhua's arguments attempting to establish jurisdiction under Section 1581(c), and in the alternative, Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, DOJ argued that the decision to not start a scope inquiry is not a reviewable decision under Section 1581(c) (Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00502).
CBP violated the law when it imposed antidumping and countervailing duties, Section 301 China tariffs, merchandise processing fees and harbor maintenance fees on importer Richmond International Forest Products' (RIFP's) hardwood plywood imports since the entries were made in Cambodia and not China, the importer said. In three separate but very similar complaints filed at the Court of International Trade, RIFP argued that CBP ignored evidence revealing that the hardwood plywood was made in Cambodia, thereby abusing its discretion when it imposed a host of duties on the products (Richmond International Forest Products v. United States, CIT #21-00063, #21-00318, #21-00319).