The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in an April 14 opinion denied steel company SSAB Enterprises the right to intervene in a challenge to a countervailing duty review. Although the company requested the Commerce Department open the review, it "sat on the sidelines" during the proceeding, Judge M. Miller Baker said in the opinion. "Commerce's regulations ... require that a would-be litigant do more than just show up."
Companies have the right to judicially challenge an antidumping duty investigation's final determination even if it is subject to a suspension agreement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a series of four opinions on April 14. The court issued the opinions together as they all pertain to the same antidumping investigation on Mexican tomatoes. While the appellate court sent the cases back establishing jurisdiction for the claims against the AD investigation's final determination, the court did dismiss some claims against the termination of a prior suspension agreement and the new suspension agreement.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices April 14 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department should not have tapped Malaysia as the primary surrogate country in an antidumping duty review, plaintiff-appellants, led by Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., said in an April 7 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellants said that after the Court of International Trade invalidated Commerce's basis for picking Malaysia, the agency "advanced meritless bases" to keep its pick and that Romania figures to be the better choice (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. Ltd. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1298).
The Court of International Trade in an April 14 opinion denied steel company SSAB Enterprises' bid to intervene in a countervailing duty review challenge, holding that since the company "sat on the sidelines" during the review, it didn't have the right to join the case. SSAB requested the review the 2019 CVD review of cut-to-length carbon steel plate from South Korea, but it didn't participate in it. "Commerce’s regulations, however, require that a would-be litigant do more than just show up," the opinion said. "Because SSAB did not actively participate in the review, the court denies its motion to intervene."
The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to hear challenges to the Commerce Department's final determination in antidumping cases subject to suspension agreements, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a series of four opinions issued April 14. Throughout the four cases, various U.S. and Mexican tomato producers challenged the final determination in the antidumping investigation into Mexican tomatoes, which was subject to an antidumping suspension agreement. The cases also challenged Commerce's withdrawal from a previous suspension agreement and the agency's decision to continue the antidumping investigation following this withdrawal.
The Commerce Department's decision not to grant exporter Ningbo Qixin a separate rate in an antidumping duty matter for not having any sales during the period of review "is logically inconsistent" since the agency is supposed to then rescind the antidumping review, the exporter told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an April 12 opening brief. Ningbo Qixin also argued that the Court of International Trade improperly denied the appellant's motion to file new factual information out of time since "extenuating circumstances" warranted another shot to submit the information (Canadian Solar, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2162).
A federal judge ordered six companies in Southern California to pay $1.83 billion for their role in a scheme to skirt $1.8 billion in antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum, disguised as "pallets," exported to the U.S., the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California announced. Two aluminum companies and four warehousing businesses, all related to each other, were sentenced to five years' probation and ordered to pay $1.83 billion in restitution. The companies were convicted last year (see 2108240013).