South Korean exporter Dongkuk Steel Mill filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade March 2 to contest the Commerce Department's 2019 review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea. Dongkuk challenges Commerce's finding that the provision of carbon emission permits to mandatory respondent Hyundai Steel constituted a countervailable subsidy. The result of the review was a 0.56% CVD rate for Dongkuk, which participated in the review as a voluntary respondent (Dongkuk Steel Mill Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00032).
Italian Exporter, US Importers Clear Up Oral Argument Over Lack of In-Person Verification in AD Case
Following oral argument over a question of whether a questionnaire submitted in lieu of verification constitutes verification in an antidumping matter, both the plaintiffs, led by Ellwod City Forge Co., and the defendant-intervenors, led by Metalcam, submitted follow-up briefs. Metalcam told the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department acted within its discretion to issue the questionnaire instead of on-site verification. Meanwhile, Ellwood responded to the oral argument by arguing that it exhausted administrative remedies on this question, but that even if it did not, this should not bar consideration of the legal claims (Ellwood City Forge Company v. United States, CIT #21-00073).
World Trade Organization members agreed at the Feb. 28 meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body to set up a dispute panel to look at China's complaint concerning Australia's antidumping duties and countervailing duties on Chinese goods, the WTO said Feb. 28. Australia imposed the AD duty measures to cover imports of wind towers, stainless steel sinks and railway wheels from China and the CVD measures to cover stainless steel sinks. China first requested a panel over the duties in January, but the request was blocked.
A host of law firms have said that they are dropping Russian clients and reviewing work related to Russia to comply with the spate of global sanctions following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, per reports from Reuters and Law.com. Firms such as White & Case, Baker McKenzie, and Morgan Lewis & Bockius -- all with offices in Russia -- are working to gauge sanctions exposure due to their dealings with Russian clients and flush the exposure from their business.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices March 2 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) and Riverside Plywood, two plaintiffs in a countervailing duty case, submitted a notice of supplemental authority saying the Commerce Department has shown it can verify non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP) even without information from the Chinese government. Because Commerce has done so in a different CVD investigation following the submission of standard supplemental questionnaire responses, verification is possible in the current case, the plaintiffs told the Court of International Trade (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT #20-03885).
The Commerce Department's decision to deny a scope ruling request is not a judicially reviewable action, the Department of Justice said in its motion to dismiss a case brought by three companies at the Court of International Trade. CIT jurisdiction will instead be established at the end of a changed circumstances review requested by the plaintiffs, DOJ said (Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00502).
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.
CBP ignored the Court of International Trade's ruling that it needs some finding of culpability before determining that importer Diamond Tools Technology evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on diamond sawblades from China, DTT said in a Feb. 28 brief. Instead, CBP just ignored the court's definitions of the terms "false" and "omission" and illogically claimed that the customs penalty law's establishment of specific degrees of culpability negates the Enforce and Protect Act's culpability requirement, DTT argued (Diamond Tools Technology v. United States, CIT #20-00060).