The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 5 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Petitioner Brooklyn Bedding's argument against two issues in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on Indonesian mattresses amount to "mere disagreement" with the Commerce Department's decisions, "falling far short of the required showing," the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 3 reply brief (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1674).
In a Dec. 2 motion for judgment, exporter Kukdo Chemical said the Commerce Department wrongly determined that China’s subsidization of the country’s own chemical industry conferred a transnational countervailable subsidy to it itself, an unrelated Korean producer (Kumho P&B Chemicals v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00143).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 5 partly remanded and partly sustained a Commerce Department countervailing duty investigation of Malaysian wind towers. It sustained the use of a Singaporean Tier III electricity benchmark, but remanded to have Commerce explain how it now calculates entered value adjustments and address exporter CS Wind’s concern about Malaysian land benchmarks.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 5 held that the countervailing duty statute doesn't require the Commerce Department "to compare the enterprise or industry at issue with all users of the subsidy." Interpreting the statute, which says Commerce can find de facto specificity if a company or industry is "a predominant user of the subsidy," Judges Jimmie Reyna, Sharon Prost and Raymond Chen said the agency has "reasonable flexibility in determining the comparator group." Commerce's decisions to limit the comparator group is reviewed for its reasonableness, the court said.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 4 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 2 granted the government's voluntary remand motion for the Commerce Department to reconsider its use of the Cohen's d test in an antidumping duty case in light of the Federal Circuit's decisions in Stupp v. U.S. and Marmen v. U.S. largely invalidating the agency's use of the test, which is used to detect "masked" dumping (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1556).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 3 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 2 dismissed a pair of cases for failure to file a complaint within the statutorily prescribed time to do so. Both cases were brought by countervailing duty petitioners to contest the Commerce Department's final determination in the CVD investigation on corrosion-resistant steel products from Canada (see 2510290053). The companies, Steel Dynamics and Nucor Corporation, are represented by different attorneys, and neither immediately responded to requests for comment (Steel Dynamics v. U.S., CIT # 25-00237) (Nucor Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 25-00238).
A total of four hardwood plywood importers or exporters dropped their cases at the Court of International Trade contesting the Commerce Department's final results of the 2021-22 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on hardwood plywood products from China.