The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 29 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
Counsel for pencil importer Royal Brush Manufacturing resubmitted its entry of appearance at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Dec. 23, attempting to bring its filing in line with court rules. The appellate court previously found that the notice was not in compliance with court rules since the filing party, Ronald Oleynik of Holland & Knight, didn't have an electronic filing account (see 2112160069). In the updated filing, Steven Gordon was listed as principal counsel for Royal Brush (Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1226).
The Commerce Department can't make a particular market situation adjustment to an antidumping duty respondent's cost of production in the sales-below-cost test, the Court of International Trade again said, sustaining the agency's remand results dropping the adjustment. In a Dec. 28 opinion, Judge Jane Restani also said that the issue of the date of the sale in the AD investigation was irrelevant since it wouldn't change the result of the investigation, which was a de minimis rate for respondent Borusan Mannesmann.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should uphold a lower court ruling establishing that the Commerce Department can apply total adverse facts available for a mandatory respondent's failure to provide its factors of production (FOP) data on a control number (CONNUM)-specific basis in an antidumping duty case, the Department of Justice argued in a Dec. 22 brief. DOJ said that the Court of International Trade correctly held that Commerce's requirement for CONNUM-specific reporting isn't subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, as the plaintiff-appellant Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial argues, but rather an exercise of Commerce's discretion (Xi'an Metals & Minerals Import & Export Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2205).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 28 sustained a remand redetermination from the Commerce Department that reverses the outcome of Commerce's countervailing duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Indonesia, which had resulted in a CV duty order in 2020, but post-remand finds no countervailable subsidization.
The Court of International Trade erred when it said that there was no legal authority for expedited countervailing duty reviews, appellants told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in their opening brief. The appellants, led by the Canadian government, argued that the trade court improperly applied Chevron deference to the Commerce Department in finding that two different sections of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act didn't give Commerce the legal authority to carry out expedited reviews (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #19-00122).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 28 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
The American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring filed two complaints at the Court of International Trade, one contesting the Commerce Department's final results in an antidumping duty review of MLWF from China and in a countervailing duty review of MLWF from China. The U.S. industry group said that Commerce erred in the AD review by deviating from its expected method when finding the final dumping margin for non-selected separate rate companies and that it erred in the CVD review by failing to properly construct benchmarks for veneers, fiberboard and paint, primer and stain (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. U.S., CIT #21-00595) (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. U.S., CIT #21-00596).
The Commerce Department cannot deduct an antidumping duty review respondent's U.S. price by the amount of Section 232 duties paid, Tube Investments of India argued in a Dec. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade. While the trade court has repeatedly held that Commerce can make such an adjustment, TII nevertheless filed its complaint, holding that Commerce's decision to deduct Section 232 duties from the U.S. price is not backed by substantial evidence. Nithya Nagarajan of Husch Blackwell, counsel for TII, said that she believes the facts are different in the underlying administrative review and that the legal argument will be different, perhaps giving TII a shot that its results will be different this time around at CIT. The review in question is the 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from India (Tube Investments of India v. United States, CIT #21-00598).
Importer Gogo International evaded antidumping duties on diamond sawblades and parts from China, CBP found in its Enforce and Protect Act investigation determination. CBP determined that substantial evidence existed revealing that Gogo was transshipping the sawblades through Canada, primarily because Gogo and one of its affiliates did not submit any evidence contradicting this claim.