The World Trade Organization circulated the agenda for the Sept. 27 meeting of the dispute settlement body, which includes a briefing on the implementation status of the dispute resolutions for the U.S.'s antidumping duties on hot-rolled steel products from Japan, Section 110(5) of the U.S. Copyright Act, the U.S.'s antidumping and countervailing duties on large residential washers from South Korea, and certain methodologies and their application to antidumping proceedings involving China. The DSB will also hear about the U.S.'s Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, and will receive a statement from the U.S. about the European Union's measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft. China will also issue a statement regarding the panel report in the dispute over the U.S.'s safeguard measures on solar panel imports.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Sept. 23 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Commission's final negative injury determination in its antidumping and countervailing duty investigation of fabricated structural steel from Canada, China and Mexico, in a Sept. 22 confidential opinion. Judge Claire Kelly handed down the result, and plans to publish the public opinion on Sept. 30, she said in a letter to the litigants. The parties have until Sept. 29 to review information that's not already bracketed that should be bracketed and the already-bracketed information to make sure no confidential information is released to the public (Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction, LLC v. United States, CIT #20-00090).
Despite the Department of Justice's agreement to a limited injunction against liquidation through the end of the first administrative review of the relevant antidumping duty order, Ashley Furniture still seeks an open-ended injunction is needed to avoid irreparable harm due to a potentially years-long litigation that could run beyond the end of the first review, Ashley said in a Sept. 17 reply brief at the Court of International Trade.
Untethering the six-year statute of limitations for customs bonds from the date an entry is liquidated would impair the ability of customs sureties to function, and CBP’s attempt to collect on a bond issued by Aegis Security Insurance eight years after liquidation is an unreasonable delay that would cause real harm to the surety, Aegis said in a brief filed Sept. 16 at the Court of International Trade.
The Commerce Department's mandatory respondent selection process in a countervailing duty case on wood flooring resembled "Russian roulette" due to fundamental errors in the CBP data used to make the respondent picks, plaintiffs in a case at the Court of International Trade said in four briefs (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03885).
The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review that made a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production in a sales-below-cost test in a Sept. 23 order. Judge Gary Katzmann said that the statute does not permit PMS adjustment to sales-below-cost tests when calculating normal value. The ruling came in a case brought by mandatory respondents HiSteel and Kukje, which challenged an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from South Korea.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department violated the law when it found that antidumping duty review respondent BlueScope Steel Pty did not reimburse its U.S. affiliate, BlueScope Steel Americas (BSA), for antidumping duties, U.S. Steel Corp. said in a Sept. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The agency failed to consider evidence provided by U.S. Steel that detracts from the agency's conclusion and failed to provide a reasoned explanation that reimbursement was not occurring, the steel giant said (United States Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00528).