A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling is "critical" to an antidumping duty case brought by exporter SeAH Steel Corporation, defendant-intervenor U.S. Steel Corporation said in a March 21 notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade. The recent Federal Circuit opinion held that the Commerce Department did not properly support its position that a particular market situation existed affecting inputs to oil country tubular goods from South Korea (see 2203110044). While the appellate court's decision upheld the trade court's ruling that the PMS determination was not justified, the court used different reasoning that U.S. Steel finds crucial to its case (SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00086).
The Court of International Trade sustained all of the Commerce Department's positions in a countervailing duty investigation on wind towers from Canada, spurning a slew of litigants in the case ranging from the Canadian government to a U.S. wind tower trade group. In the March 18 opinion made public March 23, Judge Gary Katzmann sided with Commerce on all five issues under contention.
The Commerce Department failed to explain how a particular market situation existed for hot-rolled coil in the Indian market such that it affected antidumping duty respondents' costs of production, the Court of International Trade said in a March 11 opinion made public March 21. Judge Claire Kelly said that while Commerce identified market phenomena that could have distorted the price of HRC, the agency failed to show how the collective impact of these phenomena is unique to the Indian market and constitutes a PMS. Kelly also remanded Commerce's regression analysis used to adjust for the PMS, should the agency find that one still exists.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices March 23 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Commerce Department properly picked an adverse facts available rate based on the financial data of one of the antidumping duty petitioner's parent companies in an AD investigation, the Court of International Trade said in a March 21 decision. Senior Judge Thomas Aquilino ruled that the arguments from plaintiffs Globe Specialty Metals and Mississippi Silicon fall flat since they are based mainly on "their interpretation of outdated agency practices." The agency was not compelled to pick the highest AFA rate out there, the judge said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate following an opinion allowing the Commerce Department to use adverse facts available due to the Chinese government's failure to provide information on its electricity price-setting practices, in a countervailing duty review. In the January opinion, the appellate court affirmed Commerce's CV duties for the provision of electricity below cost after the Chinese government failed to explain price variations across different provinces (see 2201280033). The March 21 mandate affirms Commerce's results in the administrative review of the CVD order on solar cells from China (Canadian Solar v. United States, Fed. Cir. 21-1434).
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.
Antidumping petitioner Welspun Tubular plans to appeal to the Supreme Court over the question of whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value in an antidumping proceeding. According to a March 22 brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Welspun wants a stay in the mandate issued by the appellate court nixing the PMS adjustment while the Supreme Court considers the case (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1748).
The Commerce Department lawfully imposed countervailing duties on Vietnam's undervaluation of currency, DOJ said in a March 21 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Defending Commerce's recent practice to include currency undervaluation as a countervailable benefit, DOJ argued that the currency undervaluation was specific to traders and that the agency's decision to countervail the currency undervaluation is permitted under the statute (Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00397).