The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results dropping a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production for antidumping duties on South Korean heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes, in a June 24 decision. Mandatory respondent Dong-A Steel Co. is now set to see its dumping margin drop to 11%, and Kukje Steel Co. to 7.89%. Since HiSteel was not party to the litigation, it's "not entitled to revised rates calculated on remand," Katzmann said.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 23 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
The Commerce Department, under protest, dropped a cost-based particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in an antidumping administrative review in June 22 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. The agency recalculated the weighted-average dumping margins of mandatory respondents Hyundai Steel Company and Husteel Co. in the 2016-17 review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Korea. Husteel, the plaintiff in the case, received a 6.44% antidumping rate, down from 10.91%, while Hyundai received a 4.82% rate -- down from 8.14% before litigation (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #19-00107).
The Commerce Department has the right to select a single mandatory respondent in antidumping proceedings, the Department of Justice said in a June 21 response brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. YC Rubber, Sutong and ITG Voma are appealing their unsuccessful Court of International Trade challenge of the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. In its brief, DOJ says that Commerce is not required by law to examine more than one company individually (YC Rubber Co. (North America) et al. v. United States, Federal Circuit #21-1489).
The Commerce Department's recent interpretation of the finished merchandise exemption to antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China led to the "same absurd results" the agency originally wanted to avoid in its previous "subassemblies test" interpretation, importer WKW North America argued in a June 21 brief in support of its motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. WKW contests a scope ruling from Commerce that found that the importer's automotive waist finishers, belt moldings and outer waist belts are within the scope of the AD/CVD orders because subassemblies can't qualify for the exemption (WKW North America, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00072).
The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's finding that tapered roller bearings exporter Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. failed to rebut the presumption of government control in an antidumping proceeding, in a June 23 decision. After reconsidering rejected evidence as instructed by Judge Gary Katzmann, Commerce still held that ZMC could be controlled by the Chinese government. ZMC, through multiple layers of ownership, is owned by the Zhejiang Provincial State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission within the government of China, and a labor union for ZMC parent company Zhejiang Sunny I/E Corp. Since the ultimate owners of the labor union's shares were members of Sunny's government-run employee stock ownership committee, the Chinese government can exert control over ZMC, Commerce found.
Target's complaint filed in the Court of International Trade challenging the court's ability to order the reliquidation of imports past 90 days after their initial liquidation by CBP “masquerades as a motion” for CIT to relitigate this issue, the Department of Justice said in a June 22 motion to dismiss the case. The court's decision in the underlying case, Home Products International Inc. v. United States, already addressed Target's complaint, so the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, DOJ said.
Australia will "take action" at the World Trade Organization via its dispute settlement process to combat Chinese antidumping duties on Australian wine, the country's trade minister announced in a June 19 press release. Winemakers in Australia have seen exports drop from around $830 million (US dollar equivalents) to about $15 million following punitive Chinese tariffs as high as 218% on Australian wine, Bloomberg reported. While Australia claims to remain open to direct engagement with China on this issue, "the Government will continue to vigorously defend the interests of Australian winemakers using the established system in the WTO to resolve our differences," the release said. The action comes after a long year of rising trade tensions between the two nations.
The following new requests for antidumping and countervailing duty scope rulings were recently filed with the Commerce Department:
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 22 on AD/CV duty proceedings: