The Department of Homeland Security recently posted CBP reports on antidumping and countervailing duty enforcement actions for fiscal years 2019 and 2018. DHS posted both reports April 15, though the FY 2019 report is dated Nov. 13, 2020, and the FY 2018 report is dated Dec. 12, 2019.
The Commerce Department on April 23 released an antidumping duty order on seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipe from the Czech Republic (A-851-804). AD duty rates were unchanged from Commerce’s final determinations, ranging from 51.07% to 51.7%. The 51.7% rate for both mandatory respondents was based on adverse facts available because of the mandatory respondents’ lack of participation, and the all-others rate based on a simple average of the dumping margins alleged in the petition. The order details a short three-day gap period, with the provisional measures period running four months from the Dec. 21 AD duty preliminary determination (unextended to six months). The International Trade Commission also published its final injury determination April 23.
Polyethylene terephthalate sheet exporter OCTAL, Inc. filed a motion April 21 with the Court of International Trade in support of the Department of Justice's move to voluntarily remand an antidumping duty investigation, but called for additional time to for the Commerce Department to reconsider the case. OCTAL says the standard 90-day period of remand is not long enough, arguing Commerce should reopen the record to obtain additional information on the central claim in the lawsuit.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices April 23 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
Two Chinese exporters are set to face a high 541.94% countervailing duty rate based on their alleged lack of cooperation, said the Commerce Department in the preliminary results of an administrative review on solar cells from China published April 23. Solarchina did not cooperate in the review, and Taichang did not obtain a full questionnaire response from its parent company, causing Commerce to set a CV duty rate for the two companies as if they benefited from every program examined for all respondents during the administrative review.
The Court of International Trade stayed all proceedings in a case against 14 individuals for a scheme to evade antidumping and countervailing duties until criminal charges also levied against eight of the defendants are settled, in an April 22 procedural order. The defendants allegedly evaded duties on off-the-road tires, passenger vehicle and light truck tires and truck and bus tires from China. The case in CIT has the government seeking $20.9 million in penalties for customs fraud and $5.6 million in unpaid duties for the eight individuals with criminal charges, as well as six other defendants and the Houston-based company Winland International, which does business as Super Tire. The Section 1582 penalty case alternatively seeks $12.5 million in penalties and $2.2 million in unpaid duties for gross negligence.
The Department of Justice and defendant-intervenor American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance moved to strike part of Chinese cabinet exporter's argument in an antidumping case, claiming the exporter included a new argument in a court filing that was not part of the underlying investigation. In dual April 22 motions to strike in the Court of International Trade, both DOJ and the AKCA said the argument by the exporter, The Ancientree Cabinet Co., over the proper classification of its inputs for wooden cabinets and vanities in selecting surrogate values for an antidumping investigation from a nonmarket economy was not raised during oral argument. A lawyer associated with the case confirmed Ancientree will file a response to the motion to strike.
Wood importer Richmond International Forest Products launched a challenge in the Court of International Trade claiming its imports of hardwood plywood from Cambodia were erroneously deemed to be of Chinese origin by CBP. In an April 21 complaint, RIFP said its imports were improperly hit with antidumping and countervailing duties, Section 301 tariffs, Merchandise Processing Fees and additional Harbor Maintenance Fee. In addition, RIFP claims that CBP's failure to consider what it sees as key evidence violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the importer's Fifth Amendment rights of due process.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices April 22 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
Domestic producer coalitions filed new petitions April 20 seeking antidumping duties on raw honey from Argentina, Brazil, India, Ukraine and Vietnam. Represented by Kelley Drye, the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association allege dumping at rates ranging from 16.83% to 22.60% for Argentina, 34.22% to 99.16% for India, 10.56% to 94.84% for Ukraine, and at 114.5% for Brazil and 207.08% for Vietnam. The scope is more narrow than that of the existing AD duty order on honey from China, with the latter covering both natural and artificial honey, as well as comb honey and certain packaged honey exempt from the scope of the new petitions. The petition for Argentina comes just eight years after antidumping and countervailing duty orders on honey from that country were revoked by a changed circumstances review in 2012.