The Court of International Trade granted a preliminary injunction against the liquidation of two plaintiffs' pig farrowing crate imports after they argued that their case raises serious legal questions over an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case. In a Dec. 6 brief, the plaintiffs, Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co., said that since they have made a showing of irreparable harm, the burden in showing its success on the merits is lowered and that the mere questions raised by the case clear this hurdle. The Department of Justice also signed off on the injunction motion (Ikadan System USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00592).
A confidential opening brief from appellant ABB Enterprise Software is not in compliance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's rules, the appellate court said in a Dec. 6 notice of non-compliance. The Federal Circuit said that the document "does not contain the required proof of service or the proof of service indicates improper service of material that cannot be served through the court’s electronic filing system." ABB's case appeals a Court of International Trade ruling that sided against the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty review. The opening brief in question argued that the CIT wrongly held that Commerce impermissibly speculated when finding that an antidumping duty respondent's reporting error supported disregarding the respondent's entire U.S. and home market databases (see 2111230087) (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems, fka Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2312).
Pirelli Tyre Co. properly showed that it was not under Chinese government control for the first 10 months of an antidumping review period and thus subject to a separate rate analysis, the Commerce Department said in its Dec. 3 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. Since a Chinese company bought Pirelli in the 10th month of the review, though, the company is considered under Chinese government control from that point forward. The case had been remanded so that Commerce could reconsider the first 10 months of the review, before the sale (Qingdao Sentury Tire Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 18-00079).
The Court of International Trade upheld a Commerce Department scope ruling finding solar panel roof mountings from China Custom Manufacturing and Greentec within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. In his Dec. 6 opinion, Judge Stephen Vaden sided with Commerce in finding that the mounts do not qualify for the finished merchandise exception and instead constitute subassemblies which are subject to the orders. Vaden did so even over plaintiffs' arguments that a previous interpretation of the finished merchandise exclusion would have excluded the mounts from the orders.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 7 granted partial victory to an importer challenging the assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties on its entries of solar cells, even though it says the entries preceded the date Commerce changed the scope of the relevant AD/CVD orders to include the products. Aireko Construction said the entries should be reliquidated at zero percent AD/CVD rates. However, the importer had challenged the assessments based on a denied protest, rather than file its case under the proper jurisdiction to challenge Commerce's instructions to CBP. Without a valid challenge to those instructions, CIT ruled that it could only instruct CBP to reliquidate the entries according to Commerce's instructions, free of CV duties but at an AD duty rate of 42.33%.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Nov. Dec. 6 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
Commerce improperly applied a duty drawback adjustment to a Turkish aluminum exporter’s antidumping duty rate, because the imports the exporter used to claim drawback could not be used to make the exported merchandise, the Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group said in a brief filed Nov. 23 in support of its motion for judgment in the case (Assan Aluminiyum Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00246).
Section 1581(i) Jurisdiction Stands in Liquidation Instruction Challenge, Solar Cell Importer Argues
The Department of Justice's motion to dismiss a challenge to the Commerce Department's liquidation instructions to CBP over MS Solar's solar panels is "nothing more than an effort to avoid judicial scrutiny of its arbitrary and unreasonable actions," MS Solar said in a Nov. 23 brief to the Court of International Trade. The solar panel importer urged the court to accept jurisdiction under the court's Section 1581(i) "residual" jurisdiction provision (MS Solar Investments, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00303).
The Commerce Department's finding that the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy is de facto specific to Spanish olive growers and thus countervailable is not backed by substantial evidence, plaintiffs in a case challenging this contention said in Dec. 3 comments submitted to the Court of International Trade. In its bid to corroborate this de facto specificity finding, Commerce actually shows the "proportionate nature of the programs," undermining the de facto finding, the comments on Commerce's remand results said (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa et al v. United States, CIT #18-00195).
The Commerce Department has given no reason why South Korean steel company SeAH Steel Corp. should be penalized via a delayed remand submission because "Commerce has chosen to procrastinate" on a delayed remand in another case, SeAH told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 2 brief (SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-00150).