The Commerce Department properly rejected data corrections submitted by exporter Goodluck India in an antidumping duty investigation on cold-drawn mechanical tubing from India, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in an Aug. 31 opinion, reversing the Court of International Trade's decision. The corrections were not “minor,” meaning that Commerce was justified when it originally rejected the revisions and hit Goodluck with an adverse facts available AD duty rate, a three-judge panel at the appellate court said.
The European Union's use of trade defense measures in 2020, including antidumping and countervailing duties, succeeded despite COVID-19-related challenges, the European Commission said in a post highlighting its actions against unfair trade practices of the past year. The EU noted its temporary changes to regular practices, such as on-site verification visits. The commission also released statistics regarding its trade remedies. In all, the EU had 150 trade defense measures at the end of 2020, 10 more than in 2019, that included 128 antidumping measures, 19 antisubsidy duties and three safeguard measures. Ninety-nine of the 150 were imposed on China, nine on Russia, seven on India and six on the U.S. The commission also highlighted its new countervailing duties on cross-border financial support given by China to Chinese-owned companies making glass fiber fabrics and continuous filament glass fiber made in Egypt for export to the EU.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 31 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department should have picked Indonesia over India when selecting a surrogate country in an antidumping duty administrative review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, Catfish Farmers of America said in an Aug. 30 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade. Commerce picked India in spite of the fact that Indonesia "produces identical and comparable merchandise that more closely represents the subject merchandise than does India, Indonesia produces and exports far greater quantities than India, and the Indonesian data on the record are superior to the Indian data," the complaint said (Catfish Farmers of Ameirca, et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00380).
The Commerce Department's arguments to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that say that pencil importer Prime Time Commerce failed to exhaust its administrative remedies in an antidumping duty review mistake the agency's regulatory requirements, Prime Time said in an Aug. 26 reply brief. Having already requested certain "gap-filling" information that only Commerce could provide five other times in the review, Prime Time did not need to request a sixth time to have argued for a separate rate in the review, the brief said.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in an Aug. 31 opinion that the Commerce Department properly rejected cold-drawn mechanical tubing exporter Goodluck India's questionnaire corrections in an antidumping investigation. Reversing a Court of International Trade's decision, a three-judge panel said that Goodluck's corrections weren't "minor." The reversal led to a 33.8% dumping margin for Goodluck, which had been assigned a zero percent rate following the CIT decision.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 30 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade remanded an antidumping case to the Commerce Department after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the trade court's initial ruling in an Aug. 26 order. The Federal Circuit had on July 20 backed Commerce's initial decision to adjust a Turkish pipe exporter's post-sale price by only one-third of a late delivery penalty, finding that the adjustment was supported by substantial evidence (see 2107200038). CIT erred in leading Commerce to adjust the post-sale price by the entirety of the penalty cost since the customer was not aware of the methodology by which the amount of the penalty was to be determined. Commerce has 45 days to file the remand, and any objections can be filed 20 days after the redetermination submission (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00056).