CBP failed to require that a company accused of evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties provide adequate public summaries of its confidential information, and the agency also failed to properly review the administrative record, the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee (AHSTEC) told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 10 reply to briefs submitted by the Justice Department and defendant-intervenors MSeafood Corp. and Minh Phu Seafood (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee v. United States, CIT #21-00129).
The Commerce Department can calculate the separate rate respondent's dumping margin by averaging an adverse facts available rate and a de minimis rate in an antidumping duty review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Jan. 10. Upholding the Court of International Trade's decision, the Federal Circuit said the separate rates in the past AD reviews trended upward, justifying the 41.025% dumping rate for the separate rate respondents.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Jan. 7-10 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
The Commerce Department was wrong to allow an antidumping duty respondent's net hedging-related gains to offset its cost of manufacturing in an AD investigation, the Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group told the Court of International Trade in its Jan. 7 complaint. Commerce's finding that the respondent's hedging gains are "associated" with its purchases of aluminum is insufficient because the record also shows that the hedging contracts are associated with its sales of finished goods, the complaint said (The Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group, et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00618).
The Court of International Trade, in a Jan. 7 letter to litigants in an antidumping duty case, asked the parties to consult on whether oral argument should be held on issues not currently part of ongoing appeals of key Section 232 questions. The case, brought by respondent and Turkish steel company Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi, concerns the Commerce Department's refusal to grant a full duty drawback adjustment and a deduction of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from the company's U.S. price (see 2112300044) (Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi v. U.S., CIT #21-00140). While the Section 232 issue is being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2097, Judge Jane Restani asked the parties to figure out if litigation can continue without the Section 232 question involved. Restani also pointed to the current petition to the Supreme Court over the validity of some Section 232 tariffs in Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. U.S.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should uphold the Commerce Department's finding that Shelter Forest International Acquisition's hardwood plywood exports didn't circumvent the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China, Shelter Forest and others said in a response brief. Shelter Forest argued that the appellate court should uphold the Court of International Trade's ruling that Shelter Forest's plywood wasn't later-developed merchandise and the company wasn't guilty of evasion (Shelter Forest International Acquisition Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2281).
CBP initiated two antidumping and countervailing duty evasion investigations on cast iron soil pipe fittings (CISPF) from China under suspicion that imports from certain companies were evading the orders by way of transshipment through Cambodia. The Cambodian-registered company Little Fireflies International was implicated in both of the investigations as the importer of record in each case but also as the source of the covered merchandise for another importer named in one of the investigations, Granite Plumbing. CBP imposed interim measures in both investigations after finding a reasonable suspicion that Little Fireflies and Granite Plumbing entered merchandise covered by the ADD/CVD orders through evasion.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 10 upheld the Commerce Department's rates for the separate rate respondents in an antidumping review on diamond sawblades from China. In the review, Commerce calculated the rate by averaging the adverse facts available and zero percent rates of the two respondents. Affirming the Court of International Trade's decision, the Federal Circuit said this move was valid since Commerce was authorized by the statute to rely on AFA in finding the separate rate and that the rate was supported by evidence that the separate rates all trended upwards over the past administrative reviews.
The Court of International Trade assigned six cases over the Commerce Department's final results in the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China to Judge Timothy Reif. The lead plaintiffs in the cases are Zhejiang Dadongwu Greenhome Wood Co., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, Evolutions Flooring, Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co., and American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring. The complaints concern, among other things, the alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, Commerce's calculations for the provision of veneer and electricity for less than adequate remuneration, and the agency's decision to use a VAT rate that doesn't reflect what the respondent actually paid.