The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Jan. 31 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
The Commerce Department on Jan. 21 issued a final scope ruling continuing to find "veneered panels" with only two layers of veneer are subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on hardwood plywood from China (A-570-051/C-570-052), and that their processing in Vietnam into plywood by adding face and back veneers does not substantially transform the panels into a product of Vietnam.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department can use adverse facts available over the Chinese government's failure to provide information on its electricity price-setting practices in a countervailing duty review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Jan. 28 opinion. Upholding a decision from the Court of International Trade, the Federal Circuit affirmed Commerce's CV duties for the provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) after the Chinese government failed to explain price variations across different provinces.
CBP doesn't need to establish intent to defraud the U.S. in order to find an importer evaded antidumping and countervailing duties under the Enforce and Protect Act statute, CBP told the Court of International Trade in its Jan. 27 remand results. Continuing to find that Diamond Tools Technology (DTT) evaded the ADD/CVD order on diamond sawblades from China, CBP said that it only needs to show that DTT submitted false statements to prove evasion. This is in line with the purpose of the law, CBP said, since the purpose is to merely collect AD/CV duties owed to the U.S. (Diamond Tools Technology v. U.S., CIT #20-00060)
The U.S. criticized a Jan. 27 decision from a World Trade Organization arbitrator that China can impose countermeasures on U.S. goods up to $645.12 million annually due to U.S. violations of WTO obligations in 10 countervailing duty proceedings (see 2201260017), in a statement later that day. "The deeply disappointing decision today by the WTO arbitrator reflects erroneous Appellate Body interpretations that damage the ability of WTO Members to defend our workers and businesses from China’s trade-distorting subsidies," the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said in a statement. "Today’s decision reinforces the need to reform WTO rules and dispute settlement, which have been used to shield China’s non-market economic practices and underrmine fair, market-oriented competition. The Biden Administration will continue to use all our tools to stand up for the interests of America’s workers, businesses, farmers and producers, and strengthen our middle class."
Dual-piston engines with a single combustion chamber but two separate cylinders with their own pistons and connecting rods are not covered by antidumping and countervailing duties on vertical shaft engines between 99 cc and up to 225 cc from China (A-570-124/C-570-125), the Commerce Department said in a recent scope ruling.
Roma tomatoes imported from Mexico and used by Simply Fresh to make preserved salsa products are exempt from the antidumping duty suspension agreement and the suspended AD duty investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico (A-201-820), the Commerce Department said in a Jan. 12 scope ruling. The tomatoes meet the requirements of an exemption in the scope for tomatoes for processing, the agency said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Department of Justice's and defendant-intervenor Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood's arguments in favor of CBP's affirmative antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion finding ignore the procedural rights afforded by the Administrative Procedure Act, plaintiffs American Pacific Plywood and U.S. Global Forest said in a Jan. 24 brief. DOJ and the coalition argue that the plaintiffs are only entitled to what the Enforce and Protect Act statute prescribes, but American Pacific Plywood and U.S. Global Forest said this ignores the plaintiffs' other due process rights (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT Consol #20-03914).