The Court of International Trade on March 21 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a challenge brought by The Ancientree Cabinet Co. to the antidumping duty investigation of wooden cabinets and vanities from China. Judge Gary Katzmann upheld Commerce's financial ratio calculations after the agency provided more explanation on remand..
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices March 18 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Chinese exporter JA Solar International's sales were destined for the U.S., and the Commerce Department was wrong to exclude the sales in an antidumping duty review, the exporter argued in a brief to the Court of International Trade. As evidence, JA cited respondent Inventec Solar Energy Corporation's (ISEC's) questionnaire responses showing its knowledge that the sales were meant for the U.S., corroborating evidence from ISEC on this point and evidence from JA Solar supporting ISEC's admissions of knowledge (JA Solar International Limited v. United States, CIT #21-00514).
The Commerce Department's decision to deem countervailable exporter Dongbu Steel's debt-for-equity swaps was unsupported, and violated the agency's own standard practice of not reexamining subsidy programs that were previously found non-countervailable without any new information, Dongbu Steel said in a March 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00047).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices March 17 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Commerce Department ignored the Court of International Trade's and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's instructions when it continued to rely on the "likely selling price" of non-prime goods to set rates in an antidumping duty case, exporter AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke said in a March 15 brief responding to Commerce's remand results. Dillinger says the agency continued to use facts otherwise available even after the trade court ruled it unsupported, arguing Commerce must instead use the company's actual data (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT Consol. #17-00158).
Mediation in an antidumping duty case will not result in a quicker resolution nor would it help in reaching a resolution, DOJ said in a March 16 motion opposing Japanese exporter Nagase & Co.'s bid for court-annexed mediation. DOJ said it looked at the issues of the case and decided not to request a voluntary remand. As such, it intends to fight Nagase's characterization of the issues, meaning the best way to handle the case will be to "simply brief and decide the claims on their merits," the U.S. said (Nagase & Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).
Antidumping duty respondents Best Mattresses International Company's and Rose Lion Furniture Company's challenge of the Commerce Department's differential pricing analysis should be tossed since the DPA did not injure the plaintiffs, DOJ said in a March 11 brief at the Court of International Trade. Since the DPA ultimately found that no "masked" dumping was occurring, the use of the analysis, which is based on a statistical test called into question by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last year, did not give Best Mattresses and Rose Lion any standing to challenge it, the U.S. argued (Best Mattresses International Company v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00281).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied on March 16 U.S. pipe maker Welspun Tubular's motion for rehearing in a case on whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value in an antidumping duty proceeding. The appellate court issued a two-page order denying the en banc rehearing motion without a further explanation (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1748).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices March 16 on AD/CVD proceedings: